MPs quickly pass federal budget

[Canuck E Stan]

Budget passed without opposition

The passage surprised everyone — including the governing Conservatives — as the bill was quickly approved through a procedural move when no one rose in the Commons to resume debating the legislation.

“We did not anticipate the unanimous consent of the opposition to the budget,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said, his face beaming.

To appease any concerns of the opposition parties that they didn’t get enough time to criticize the budget, the Tories offered a two-hour take-note debate on the legislation before turning it over to the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.

We've heard how the NDP and Liberals were against the budget, but this?

I guess the Liberals have been out of touch with being the opposition they have forgotten what you're supposed to do when you oppose the government

[newbie]

Sheese. Liberals damned if they do, damned if they don't. Yeah, cooperation would be a bit confusing to the Conservatives alright.

[Charles Anthony]

cooperation would be a bit confusing

Interesting point.

I hear some people condemn minority or coalition governments in favor of strong majorities and I hear other people preferring them precisely because they force members of parliament to co-operate. If there is no co-operation, there is the threat of an election or withdrawn support.

With this budget, there is a chance that:

1) it really is not that bad

2) MPs want to enjoy the summer

3) no party can afford an election campaign right now

4) no party is certain of gaining any more seats if an election was held

5) all of the above!

I think we will finally see more co-operation in parliament and less arrogant grandstanding.

[scribblet]

As Gilles Duceppe said: " it was either an error, as the parties opposed to the budget bill say, which shows that they are ''incompetent, or it was not an error and they are ''liars.''

''Whether it's one or the other, they are not the required qualities for doing politics,'' Duceppe said.

Hmmm, which is it, incompetent or liars ?

[newbie]

As Gilles Duceppe said: " it was either an error, as the parties opposed to the budget bill say, which shows that they are ''incompetent, or it was not an error and they are ''liars.''

''Whether it's one or the other, they are not the required qualities for doing politics,'' Duceppe said.

Hmmm, which is it, incompetent or liars ?

How about Dueceppe has negative opinions, which don't really count for the rest of Canada.

[kimmy]

As Gilles Duceppe said: " it was either an error, as the parties opposed to the budget bill say, which shows that they are ''incompetent, or it was not an error and they are ''liars.''

''Whether it's one or the other, they are not the required qualities for doing politics,'' Duceppe said.

Hmmm, which is it, incompetent or liars ?

How about Dueceppe has negative opinions, which don't really count for the rest of Canada.

Duceppe makes a fair point. There's only 2 possibilities: either the Liberals and NDP intended to oppose the budget, or they didn't.

If they intended to oppose the budget, then letting it pass unanimously was a huge display of ineptitude.

If they didn't intend to oppose the budget, then saying that they intended to do so but missed the chance because of a procedural mix-up is simply a lie.

Here's my suspicion:

-they didn't want to vote against the budget because they didn't want to go on record as opposing the cut to the GST. "They voted against cutting the GST" is something Conservative strategists would have loved to have stated in next election's campaign ads.

-abstaining wasn't an appealing option either. They'd promised their supporters to fight aspects of the Conservatives' budget. And, of course, the Liberals had heckled the Conservatives last year for choosing to abstain rather than vote against some pieces of legislation.

-k

[FTA Lawyer]

As Gilles Duceppe said: " it was either an error, as the parties opposed to the budget bill say, which shows that they are ''incompetent, or it was not an error and they are ''liars.''

''Whether it's one or the other, they are not the required qualities for doing politics,'' Duceppe said.

Hmmm, which is it, incompetent or liars ?

How about Dueceppe has negative opinions, which don't really count for the rest of Canada.

Duceppe makes a fair point. There's only 2 possibilities: either the Liberals and NDP intended to oppose the budget, or they didn't.

If they intended to oppose the budget, then letting it pass unanimously was a huge display of ineptitude.

If they didn't intend to oppose the budget, then saying that they intended to do so but missed the chance because of a procedural mix-up is simply a lie.

Here's my suspicion:

-they didn't want to vote against the budget because they didn't want to go on record as opposing the cut to the GST. "They voted against cutting the GST" is something Conservative strategists would have loved to have stated in next election's campaign ads.

-abstaining wasn't an appealing option either. They'd promised their supporters to fight aspects of the Conservatives' budget. And, of course, the Liberals had heckled the Conservatives last year for choosing to abstain rather than vote against some pieces of legislation.

-k

I happen to think that Mr. Duceppe is a very effective politician who knows how to capitalize on opportunities but keep his comments concise and easy to grasp for his intended audience...Bravo Mr. Duceppe.

Aside from that, I think that criticizing the opposition only on this (and particularly suggesting ulterior motives) is very misguided.

Was it not Diane Ablonczy standing up to speak her piece on the budget when she and everyone in the House was made aware that a procedural f-up had meant that the budget was already passed? The point is that the government didn't even know...so how can we cast the opposition as incompetent and spare the equally unaware ruling party?

This incident is nothing more than an example of why we desperately need Parliamentary reforms. Everything in Parliament is form over substance. Even the law has slowly morphed itself in efforts to remain practical and relevant in today's society...whereas Parliament today looks just like 1867 but with different clothes on the MP's.

When everyone in the House was expecting further debate (both gov't and opposition) then why in the hell would an arbitrary time limit prevent that? We have huge books of rules governing courtroom procedure, but virtually any rule can be relaxed or set aside in a particular instance if there is consent of the parties involved and it is in the interests of efficiency / practicality / justice.

We allow warrants to be sworn by telephone, documents to be filed by fax, and prisoners to appear in court by closed circuit t.v. rather than paying to bus them every day. In an election, you can vote by mail or at an advance poll, and in the world of business you can vote by proxy or conference call.

In Parliament, every member who wants to vote needs to waste airfare at taxpayer expense so that they can physically stand in their seat to register a vote. No one is entitled to cooperate in the public interest and agree to proceed with a planned debate when it turns out the time limit has passed. In short, form defeats substance wherever the two conflict.

In my view, all MP's should be embarrased by the mysterious passing of the budget and should start looking at ways that they can cooperate to bring the Parliamentary procedures into the current century.

FTA

[Wilber]

I don't know FTA. After all it is the duty of the opposition to oppose. The budget should have been debated even if everyone knows it will pass. It should have to stand up under some kind of scrutiny from Parliament. If it doesn't matter that there is no debate because everyone knows it will pass as Layton said, why bother to hold Parliament at all when there is a majority government and we know all legislation will pass? I think Layton's comment is a cop out, he just didn't want to be put in a position where he had to make a decision between for, against or abstain. Minority governments can be hard on opposition parties to. It forces them to take some responsibility for legislation that gets passed rather than just bitching about it.

If we let our representatives just phone it in, they will look more and more like the Senate.

You're right, they all should be embarrassed. no doubt about it.

[Black Dog]

As Gilles Duceppe said: " it was either an error, as the parties opposed to the budget bill say, which shows that they are ''incompetent, or it was not an error and they are ''liars.''

''Whether it's one or the other, they are not the required qualities for doing politics,'' Duceppe said.

Hmmm, which is it, incompetent or liars ?

Given the Tories didn't know it was passed until after the fact, it sure looks like a simple procedural mix-up.

[geoffrey]

The fact that no one even debated... questionable. What's the point of having the opposition if they aren't going to ask questions of the government?

Was it too dangerous going into an election opposing any of the popular measures? I don't like some things in the budget, but I can easily see how any opposition to them could be spun during an election.

[Hicksey]

The fact that no one even debated... questionable. What's the point of having the opposition if they aren't going to ask questions of the government?

Was it too dangerous going into an election opposing any of the popular measures? I don't like some things in the budget, but I can easily see how any opposition to them could be spun during an election.

Something's not right, that's for sure. Since when does the opposition not take the opportunity to stab at the spending they don't agree with in a budget?

I think it speaks to incomptence of everyone. How can people that spend their lives playing the game that is politics NOT know when a bill has been passed? Most useful idiots watching CPAC can discern that from what they are watching.

[Charles Anthony]

How can people that spend their lives playing the game that is politics NOT know when a bill has been passed?

We voted them all in.

Politics is one of the few jobs whereby you can apply and be hired with NO RELEVANT experience.

[geoffrey]

How can people that spend their lives playing the game that is politics NOT know when a bill has been passed?

We voted them all in.

Politics is one of the few jobs whereby you can apply and be hired with NO RELEVANT experience.

And get paid six figures to do it!

[Hicksey]

How can people that spend their lives playing the game that is politics NOT know when a bill has been passed?

We voted them all in.

Politics is one of the few jobs whereby you can apply and be hired with NO RELEVANT experience.

I can't argue with that.

My MP is a car dealer in the area with no experience other than running and losing

in the 2004 election.