Will the government fall tonight?

[August1991]

By all accounts, there will be a motion put to vote tonight around 8 pm Ottawa time concerning instructions to a sub-committee. The BQ, the Tories and the NDP claim that the motion amounts to a confidence vote. The Liberals claim otherwise.

In addition, it seems apparent now that, even with NDP support, the Liberals will lose the vote.

So, then what? Clarkson will have to say something. If she sides with the Liberals (and refuses to dissolve Parliament), what will the Tories, BQ and NDP do? If she opts to dissolve Parliament, what will the Liberals do?

Are there any other options?

----

Incidentally, the King-Byng crisis has some similarities. The Liberal King too was embroiled in the Customs Scandal, remarkably similar to the currnet Sponsorship Scandal. The Tory Meighen was cerebral and unpopular.

I think King was much more savvy than PM PM; he held out a trap and Meighen fell into it.

[I miss Reagan]

It should be pretty interesting. We'll likely see more Liberal arrogance on display tonight, refusing to accept their own demise.

[takeanumber]

Nice try -- it's just a motion.

It's up to the government to decide if it's a confidence motion.

If the budget is really so bad, why are you so afraid to run against it? Why concoct this fiction of a procedural motion being some sort of confidence motion?

[August1991]

It's up to the government to decide if it's a confidence motion.

I beg to differ. If there is no clear precedent, then I believe it is up to the GG to decide whether the government has the confidence of the House.

If the budget is really so bad, why are you so afraid to run against it? Why concoct this fiction of a procedural motion being some sort of confidence motion?

I think the BQ and Tories are quite prepared to run against the budget.

Rather, since the Adscam revelations and the new NDP-inspired budget, the Tories and the BQ have both said that they will actively work to defeat this government.

A good opposition makes the Government look incompetent.

[CAGERATTLER]

A good opposition makes the Government look incompetent.

So where is the good opposition?

[Guest eureka]

The GG can take advice only from the Prime Minister> The motion, therefore is, constitutionally worthless.

The GG cannot disslolve Parliament without that advice: that is what the King & Byng afair led us to.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If there is no clear precedent, then I believe it is up to the GG to decide whether the government has the confidence of the House.

run against the budget.

this government.

This is not a confidence matter. On the simple face of it. It is a direction to a committee telling the committee to put forward a no confidence motion.

Also, it would be the Speaker who rules on the nature of the motion, I should think.

[August1991]

This article (in French) explains best the situation.

Q: Est-ce que c'est une motion de défiance, selon les règles parlementaires?

R: Non, les spécialistes de procédure parlementaire sont unanimes. Il ne s'agit que d'une procédure parlementaire, que d'un renvoi à un comité.

The Liberals are right to say that they are under no obligation by precedent to resign. (It is surprising that the NDP has said that the vote is a confidence vote.)

IOW, this is all political posturing - which the rules of procedure are all about anyway.

Duceppe has said that he may contact the GG.

Also, it would be the Speaker who rules on the nature of the motion, I should think.

The Speaker can rule whether a motion can be put forward and when but I don't think the Speaker has the power to dissolve the House!

It is the GG that ultimately forms the government or dissolves parliament. In this case however, the GG is apparently under no obligation (by precedent) to do anything.

Harper and Duceppe (and even Layton) have arguably succeeded in portraying the Liberals as arrogant and defying the will of Parliament - to the extent any non-partisan is paying attention to this little drama.

I'm struck how well Duceppe and Harper get along. Harper has described Duceppe as a "straight arrow" and I heard Duceppe stating that he is in constant contact with the other opposition leaders, particularly Harper. It is clear that the two are coordinating their actions.

[Guest eureka]

Why would Duceppe and Harper not get along just fine? Both have the same ultimate aim of emasculating the federal government.

One may be a Communist with welfare priorities; the other is a Libertarian Capitalist - if there is such a thing, Hugo. Both could care less since each wishes ten separate jurisdictions to have near sovereign powers and is not interested in what happens in the respective jurisdictions afterwards apart from the economic ties and defense.

[geoffrey]

Regardless of some formality on whether it is a confidence motion or not, it is most definately clear that the government does not have the confidence of the house and therefore the Canadian people. It doesn't matter what the legal defination is, the people of Canada have called for their government to resign. It's time that the Liberals accept responsibility for their criminal actions and face the Canadian people in an election.

Delay tactics won't help the Liberal cause, they are now a government without a mandate, without the support of the Canadian people and no authority to govern what so ever.

No matter which party you support, we all must join together as Canadians and preserve the democratic nature of our system, and call for the government to resign immediately.

[ScottBrison]

Q:Will the government fall tonight?, Or will we have a constitutional crisis?

No, and No.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Regardless of some formality on whether it is a confidence motion or not, it is most definately clear that the government does not have the confidence of the house and therefore the Canadian people. It doesn't matter what the legal defination is, ...

Typical dishonest tory lawlessness! Of course it matters what the legal defiition is. Ringwing idealogues may consider our institutions dispensable, but the rest of us prefer the rule of law.

The govenrment has lost the confidence of the house when it loses a real confidence vote, not some Separatist-Alliance procedural gimmick.

[Shakeyhands]

Question is, will Harper and Duceppe have the cajones to vote against the budget in order to bring the Gov't down? Me thinks that would be a mistake.

[takeanumber]

It was a gimmick. Plain and simple.

Let's have a vote on the budget.

[August1991]

Of course it matters what the legal defiition is. Ringwing idealogues may consider our institutions dispensable, but the rest of us prefer the rule of law.

TS, that argument strikes me as a "conservative" argument - in the line of Edmund Burke.

It was a gimmick. Plain and simple.

Let's have a vote on the budget.

It was no gimmick. The vote showed clearly that government does not have the support of the House. I think a motion of non-confidence should be presented now, immediately to test the government's support formally.

I believe in 1967 the minority Liberal government lost a similar "non-binding" vote (by accident) and it immediately held a formal non-confidence vote which it won.

At issue here is how long a government without support in the House can continue to assume power. We are in the process of setting a precedent. It is not yet a "constitutional crisis" but it's beyond posturing.

[August1991]

I will correct myself. It was February 1968:

More relevant to the present case is that of the February 1968 defeat of the minority Pearson government at third reading of a tax bill. Pearson chose not to regard this a confidence vote, since the bill had been passed twice before, but immediately introduced the following motion:

That this House does not regard its vote on February 19th ... as a vote of non-confidence in the Government.

No other business was attended to until this motion had been decided. The Liberals won, and that was the end of the matter.

(My emphasis.)

The quote is from this blog which also has an interesting discussion about the historical use of confidence votes in federal Canadian politics.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Of course it matters what the legal defiition is. Ringwing idealogues may consider our institutions dispensable, but the rest of us prefer the rule of law.

TS, that argument strikes me as a "conservative" argument - in the line of Edmund Burke.

Very insightful, August. This is something I have been noticing about the public discourse for some time. The 'liberals' have become the defenders of institutions while the 'conservatives' (in their 'neo' incarnation particularly) have become the uprooters.

[fellowtraveller]

It is not yet a "constitutional crisis" but it's beyond posturing.

IMO the true crisis will come if the Liberals are re-elected, even with a minority govt. There are many citizens who will give up on this country completely, people that would find that unimaginable until now..

[kimmy]

It is not yet a "constitutional crisis" but it's beyond posturing.

IMO the true crisis will come if the Liberals are re-elected, even with a minority govt. There are many citizens who will give up on this country completely, people that would find that unimaginable until now..

I agree, but I think the question is what form will this giving up on the country take?

For Quebecers, perhaps it will translate into even stronger support for the anti-federalists, but for the rest of the country (outside Ontario, perhaps) it'll more likely just mean further disinterest and cynicism toward this country's institutions. It's debatable whether that's a crisis or just a national embarrassment.

-k

[August1991]

If crisis there is, it will be a short one. PM PM has said that there will be a confidence vote (on the budget - which budget is not yet clear) at the latest next Thursday en huit.

[There's minor confusion that the Liberals may present the old budget so that the Tories would have to vote in favour or contradict themselves...]

It appears now that the BQ will enter a motion to adjourn at the start of each sitting until the Liberals accept a confidence vote.

And don't forget why we're in this position. The Tories had to use the extraordinary mechanism of a vote on a referral to a committee (in lieu of a genuine confidence motion) because the Liberals had arbitrarily chosen to delay all opposition days.

----

On a separate thread, we have been discussing the meaning of "fascism" and "tyranny". I have argued that the best test of democracy is whether there is a civilized, peaceful way to throw the bastards out. I think it should be clear to all that "giving up power" is very, very difficult for some people. It's a control thing. (I've got the remote...)

This little Canadian parliamentary drama is an object lesson in how tyranny starts and why it survives.

I don't mean to suggest that the Liberals are inchoate dictators or Canada is on the verge of dictatorship. Rather, I mean that if it is this difficult to dislodge PM PM, imagine how difficult it is elsewhere under less ideal circumstances.

Canadians are too inclined to see changes of power as seamless. They are not.

Sidepoint: Ultimately, our federal system is the best guarantor against tyranny and this "crisis" should make it clear why.

[Guest eureka]

There is a civilized, peaceful way, August. It is called an election called in the normal way. Other than that, the observance of genuine convention and precedent to defeat the government on a money Bill only is helpful.

The King affair is not a precedent. It was simply manoeuvring by both parties where the Liberals proved cleverer.

It was a distasteful affair that sidelined the democratic process.

Kimmy, there is no more disinterest and cynicism in the West than in any other region. The West could be helpful if it could stop whining and participate in the system that it is already "in."

[kimmy]

Kimmy, there is no more disinterest and cynicism in the West than in any other region.

That's certainly faint praise. You've seen voter turnout numbers for the past several elections, right?

-kimmy

[cybercoma]

I hate to say this but I hope there's mass protests in Ottawa if the Liberals win another minority government. I hope people from all over the country arrive, holding candlelight vigils for the death of our country.

[kimmy]

I hate to say this but I hope there's mass protests in Ottawa if the Liberals win another minority government.  I hope people from all over the country arrive, holding candlelight vigils for the death of our country.

That would require that people care. I don't think very many do care anymore, and think their numbers will decrease further with another Liberal win.

-k

[I miss Reagan]

I hate to say this but I hope there's mass protests in Ottawa if the Liberals win another minority government.  I hope people from all over the country arrive, holding candlelight vigils for the death of our country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would require that people care. I don't think very many do care anymore, and think their numbers will decrease further with another Liberal win.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True but anger will grow a little at a time. Numbers in support of separation will grow higher in the west. I've been hearing talk more and more lately. If Quebec votes to separate it will give us some good leverage. Or if oil prices stay high I can't imagine Ontario being able to resist putting their sticky fingers into our pot. Cross your fingers for another NEP, that'll push us over the edge.