Won't back crime bills, MPs say

[jdobbin]

I do not think asking the newly neutered opposition to support one of their key election promises is bullying, but call it what you will - it matters not to me.

Show some good faith in coming back to Parliament and don't ask like the goon squad with shouts of coward coming across the floor and allowing for some give and take on legislation not outlined in the election would be a good start/

If the Liberals want an election they can have one, if they don't then.. they don't. It's entirely up to them.

Regardless, the point is moot, the Liberals will cave in like they always do.

It's easy to do when you stand for nothing.

Actually, it is entirely up to the Tories. Nothing in tradition in Canada's Parliamentary system compels Harper to ask for an election if he can't get a non-money bill through.

Act like the bully and call an election at your peril. Show some good faith and maybe get the bill through.

[jdobbin]

We don't know what Harper would have said, but we do know that the CPC tried on numerious occasions to bring down the Liberal minority government.

They also let 19 confidence measures pass as has been mentioned many times here. I can't recall the Liberals shouting coward across the floor each time it happened.

By the way, all those confidence motions were on money related bills and the Throne Speech.

Edited November 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

I'm sure with the Liberals having their tail between their legs Harper will manage much better than 19 this time.

Break some records Harper!

lol

[Alta4ever]

They also let 19 confidence measures pass as has been mentioned many times here. I can't recall the Liberals shouting coward across the floor each time it happened.

By the way, all those confidence motions were on money related bills and the Throne Speech.

I don't think the conservatives drew a line in sand and said they wouldn't support the bill, then only send a few token MPs to vote against it after it was determined how many could be safely sent so the bill wouldn't fail.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure with the Liberals having their tail between their legs Harper will manage much better than 19 this time.

Break some records Harper!

I find it completely surprising that Tories here are so eager to go back to an election on non-money bills. I guess it just proves my point that they really do want an immediate election.

But seriously? On a non-money bill? After only a month or two? And they expect the following election to be about that crime bill or about the economy that the decided to put on the backburner so that they could get their crime bill through?

Really.

[jdobbin]

I don't think the conservatives drew a line in sand and said they wouldn't support the bill, then only send a few token MPs to vote against it after it was determined how many could be safely sent so the bill wouldn't fail.

Oh, I think you should go back and listen to the opposition. The Tories either found a way to support the bills or had people miss the vote to let it pass.

Those were money bills though.

If Martin had taken a hardline on all bills, it could have been many, many votes that the Tories had to do this. It would have been bullying had Martin done that.

Confidence on non-money bills is bullying. An election on a defeat in this area is completely at the discretion of the government. It is not automatic or expected.

I think even media groups that endorsed the Tories before would question Harper going to the polls over a non-money bill. The Opposition can't bring down the government on them unless Harper actually wants to go to an election.

Edited November 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[White Doors]

I find it completely surprising that Tories here are so eager to go back to an election on non-money bills. I guess it just proves my point that they really do want an immediate election.

But seriously? On a non-money bill? After only a month or two? And they expect the following election to be about that crime bill or about the economy that the decided to put on the backburner so that they could get their crime bill through?

Really.

It's up to the Liberals, jdobbin.

The Conservatives campaigned on their paltform, I don't think the Liberals have any right to be able to impede democracy. You know that the conservatives won, correct? Why would you want to oppose the democratic process? If they Liberals want to fall on their sword and force an election, that is their choice.

But, like I said, this is all froth on the mouth now, we both know the liberals would never force an election.

They should make the Platform Promises a part of the throne speech and make the throne speech a confidence motion and we will get the legislation that the most Canadians voted for. That is how democracy works.

You should be happy that Canada is moving forward. Or you can choose to be partisan and be depressed, up to you.

Edited November 5, 2008 by White Doors

[Alta4ever]

Oh, I think you go back and listen to the opposition. The Tories either found a way to support the bills or had people miss the vote to let it pass.

Those were money bills though.

If Martin had taken a hardline on all bills, it could have been many, many votes that they had to do this. It would have been bullying had Martin done that.

Confidence on non-money bills is bullying. And election on a defeat in this area is completely at the discretion of the government. It is not automatic or expected.

I think even media groups that endorsed the Tories before would question Harper going to the polls over a non-money bill. The Opposition can't bring down the government on them unless Harper actually wants to go to an election.

I disagree, the policies that are announced in the speech from the throne are key to the Conservatives mandate. Its time for the opposition to negociate with the governement not the other way around. The oppoosition holds no power right now, if they force an election its on the oppositions heads not the conservatives. We have seen what sending legislation to the commitees does, it guts it stalls it or completely rewrites it. Its time for the liberals to swallow their pride realise that they do not speak for all Canadians, dump this holier then thou art attitude re-build their party into a true populist party again. The attitude has got to go, or they will become nothing less then a group of sniveling whiners.

[jdobbin]

It's up to the Liberals, jdobbin.

Really. On a non-money bill.

The Tories can stand fast. The NDP and Bloc as well. The Liberals have to be the ones to compromise or back down from opposing a non-money bill that ordinarily wouldn't trigger an election.

I know that the Tories are framing the idea that either the Liberals support every single measure without amendments or it is a confidence measure.

The Conservatives campaigned on their paltform, I don't think the Liberals have any right to be able to impede democracy. You know that the conservatives won, correct? Why would you want to oppose the democratic process? If they Liberals want to fall on their sword and force an election, that is their choice.

You know that the Tories have minority, right? That was the Democratic process speaking.

Canadian Parliamentary tradition does not say that the Tories have to call an election except on a money bill.

But, like I said, this is all froth on the mouth now, we both know the liberals would never force an election.

Let's see if the froth of from the Tories about actually making every thing from their platform a confidence motiom.

Sounds like brutish thuggery and it is completely up to them if they want to call an election.

They should make the Platform Promises a part of the throne speech and make the throne speech a confidence motion and we will get the legislation that the most Canadians voted for. That is how democracy works.

Actually, it doesn't. The Throne speech outlines what the government wants to do. It doesn't detail the legislation.

The Liberals have already said they will not bring down the government on the Throne Speech. That would be a position that was belligerent.

Making all bills confidence motions would be belligerent as well.

You should be happy that Canada is moving forward. Or you can choose to be partisan and be depressed, up to you.

Please. The duty of the Opposition is not to vote for every measure of government operations and not try to improve bills as they serve the Canadian public. Harper said that himself.

Confidence attached to all bills is partisanship run wild.

[jdobbin]

I disagree, the policies that are announced in the speech from the throne are key to the Conservatives mandate. Its time for the opposition to negociate with the governement not the other way around. The oppoosition holds no power right now, if they force an election its on the oppositions heads not the conservatives. We have seen what sending legislation to the commitees does, it guts it stalls it or completely rewrites it. Its time for the liberals to swallow their pride realise that they do not speak for all Canadians, dump this holier then thou art attitude re-build their party into a true populist party again. The attitude has got to go, or they will become nothing less then a group of sniveling whiners.

The Throne Speech is the broad outlines of government initiatives. It isn't legislation. It isn't detailed.

Canada's Parliamentary tradition says the government loses confidence on money bills. You are saying it is on every bill. It can be only if the government says it is. It is completely up to the Tories to call an election on the crime bill or any other bill.

You are saying that the Liberals should swallow everything the Tories want or take he blame for an election. The blame will lie with the Tories if they want to go to an election on a bill that does not compel them to go to an election.

[blueblood]

Really. On a non-money bill.

The Tories can stand fast. The NDP and Bloc as well. The Liberals have to be the ones to compromise or back down from opposing a non-money bill that ordinarily wouldn't trigger an election.

I know that the Tories are framing the idea that either the Liberals support every single measure without amendments or it is a confidence measure.

You know that the Tories have minority, right? That was the Democratic process speaking.

Canadian Parliamentary tradition does not say that the Tories have to call an election except on a money bill.

Let's see if the froth of from the Tories about actually making every thing from their platform a confidence motiom.

Sounds like brutish thuggery and it is completely up to them if they want to call an election.

Actually, it doesn't. The Throne speech outlines what the government wants to do. It doesn't detail the legislation.

The Liberals have already said they will not bring down the government on the Throne Speech. That would be a position that was belligerent.

Making all bills confidence motions would be belligerent as well.

Please. The duty of the Opposition is not to vote for every measure of government operations and not try to improve bills as they serve the Canadian public. Harper said that himself.

Confidence attached to all bills is partisanship run wild.

It might be bullying, but is necessary. Harper's job is to pass laws and he'll see to it that it gets done. Martin could have done the same thing but chose not to. Bullying is how Harper is getting things done. It's not his fault the Liberals are in a mess. All Harper is doing is going through with his agenda, the ball is in the opposition's court. It's not Harper's fault the opposition are dancing to Harper's music.

[jdobbin]

It might be bullying, but is necessary. Harper's job is to pass laws and he'll see to it that it gets done. Martin could have done the same thing but chose not to. Bullying is how Harper is getting things done. It's not his fault the Liberals are in a mess. All Harper is doing is going through with his agenda, the ball is in the opposition's court. It's not Harper's fault the opposition are dancing to Harper's music.

Then it appears that an election will be on the way as I've said it will be. Harper wants one if he lets his government fall to a non-money bill vote.

Ignatieff and Rae may have been content to let Dion abstain, vote for or find other ways to let Tory bills pass but it served their own purposes to do so. Now, they themselves will carry the bag if they don't do their job as potential Opposition leaders.

Election it is. All within six months. Harper must be that confident of a majority to let it happen.

[noahbody]

If I was Harper, I'd make Quebec exempt to the crime bills. The Bloc would then have no reason to oppose the legislation. This would also help Harper politically as it would show he recognizes Quebec as a distinct society.

Edited November 5, 2008 by noahbody

[White Doors]

Then it appears that an election will be on the way as I've said it will be.

Nope

The liberals will cave in like they always do. What choice do they have really?

Easy to do when you stand for nothing.

[Alta4ever]

Nope

The liberals will cave in like they always do. What choice do they have really?

Easy to do when you stand for nothing.

Here Here

[jdobbin]

If I was Harper, I'd make Quebec exempt to the crime bills. The Bloc would then have no reason to oppose the legislation. This would also help Harper politically as it would show he recognizes Quebec as a distinct society.

How do you propose he do that? The Constitution does not provide for exempting provinces from federal law.

[jdobbin]

Nope

The liberals will cave in like they always do. What choice do they have really?

Easy to do when you stand for nothing.

That is utter confidence. Hubris even. Guess we will see if Harper really wants to play the brinkmanship part.

Nothing says he has to call an election if the bill is rejected. It is totally up to him.

[Argus]

So making every bill a confidence motion is not forcing an election? I should remind you that it isn't standard minority practice in Canada to make every bill a confidence vote.

So...who exactly is forcing an election?

Minorities aren't standard. How often did Trudeau's minority get defeated on any bill? Perhaps he made them all confidence bills too?

[Argus]

If I was Harper, I'd make Quebec exempt to the crime bills. The Bloc would then have no reason to oppose the legislation. This would also help Harper politically as it would show he recognizes Quebec as a distinct society.

quebec already has the right to make the minimum age for that "life in prison" law 16 instead of 14.

I can understand how you wouldn't know that as it has hardly been reported.

[Argus]

The Liberals are doing their job as Official Opposition. As Harper used to say, it isn't the job of the Opposition to support the government's agenda. It is their mandate to be critics of it and improve it or oppose it.

Confidence measures on non-money bills is a bullying tactic.

Oh quit whining. The Liberals, in office, are the absolute towering height of arrogance, ignoring everyone and everyone and spewing contempt and disdain for all who disagree.

[White Doors]

That is utter confidence. Hubris even. Guess we will see if Harper really wants to play the brinkmanship part.

Nothing says he has to call an election if the bill is rejected. It is totally up to him.

No, them's the facts and you know it too.

[jdobbin]

Minorities aren't standard. How often did Trudeau's minority get defeated on any bill? Perhaps he made them all confidence bills too?

I seem to recall a few bills requiring compromise and amendments from the Opposition to pass. Some were defeated and didn't actually trigger an election. Back then, a confidence vote on money bills was actually the standard.

The minority governments of Tory government of Bill Davis also went by money bills by which the standard of confidence was measured.

Harper made all bills confidence motions which is not standard for our system.

[Argus]

I find it completely surprising that Tories here are so eager to go back to an election on non-money bills. I guess it just proves my point that they really do want an immediate election.

But seriously? On a non-money bill? After only a month or two? And they expect the following election to be about that crime bill or about the economy that the decided to put on the backburner so that they could get their crime bill through?

Really.

You keep harping on that when we haven't even seen any legislation. It could actually be part of an omnibus bill which includes money for more police, for crime victims, perhaps to build a new prison or so... money anyway.

[jdobbin]

No, them's the facts and you know it too.

You assume that Harper will make it a confidence motion. You know that as a fact too?

[White Doors]

You assume that Harper will make it a confidence motion. You know that as a fact too?

No, I am just saying that if he does - the Liberals will back down toute suite. Are you saying otherwise?

Am I being unclear?

Edited November 5, 2008 by White Doors