Federal budget passes unopposed on mix-up - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

jolinar of malkshor · 06-06-2006, 02:37 PM

I cannot believed this has happened.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/nat...06/budget.html

Now the conservatives can say no onw opposed their budget.

rubecube · 06-06-2006, 02:40 PM

EDIT: That didn't work.

rubecube · 06-06-2006, 02:43 PM

Guess what the HOC has become.

Bobblehead · 06-06-2006, 02:45 PM

Looks like the Liberals & NDP got caught on a parliamentary rule. I've no problem with that, even though it doesn't appear that it would have made any difference.

Although why wasn't the finance minister in the House when his first budget was scheduled to pass?

jolinar of malkshor · 06-06-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Looks like the Liberals & NDP got caught on a parliamentary rule. I've no problem with that, even though it doesn't appear that it would have made any difference.

Although why wasn't the finance minister in the House when his first budget was scheduled to pass?

Shows how competent the Liberals and NDP are as opposition parties.

Canada 02 · 06-06-2006, 02:58 PM

I guess it's amusing when it works to your advantage. Didn't the Liberals, faceing a non-confidence vote, pass their budget on a surprise midnight reading? I'm probably confusing the particulars or the specific situation, but regardless of your political stripes, these kind of mix-ups make our political system look like a joke

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bu...-ndp-deal.html

Quote:

The opposition Conservatives denounced the Liberal-NDP budget deal and threatened repeatedly to vote against the budget and bring down the government. But on June 23, the Liberals deployed a rarely-used procedural tactic to limit debate. In a midnight vote, the Liberal's amended budget passed third reading by a vote of 152-147.

Bobblehead · 06-06-2006, 03:10 PM

There was a non-confidence vote that passed, but it was on a day that the vote wasn't binding so the Liberals dodn't need to abide by it.

All sides should have somebody that knows the rules of parliament inside-out, or maybe even have somebody in the chamber like the Master At Arms that any party can ask questions of during a session and receive answers.

But at least this isn't common. A little egg on their faces should make all of them a bit more aware in the future.

calculoso · 06-06-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

All sides should have somebody that knows the rules of parliament inside-out, or maybe even have somebody in the chamber like the Master At Arms that any party can ask questions of during a session and receive answers.

First, it wasn't the Minister that wasn't there. It was another Conservative member who had a question who didn't show up. They should have just gone to Question #2 instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBC

NDP MP Libby Davies told CBC News the mix-up happened because a Conservative MP who had been scheduled to speak first was not in the chamber.

In the ensuing confusion, Davies said the opposition legislators were waiting for the Tory MP to show up and speak before they stood up.

Next, why is it okay to play these games? Shouldn't politicians be above it on an ethics level? The games all seem so childish and would never be respected or put up with in business. It's no wonder politicians don't get respect when they pull all these stunts.

calculoso · 06-06-2006, 03:53 PM

Also.. It appears that the Conservatives aren't willing to laugh in the face of the other parties where this issue is concerned:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...606?hub=Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTV

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.

Other parties I'm sure would just move on. The Conservatives still want to hear the opinions, or at least let people express them, even if they won't lead to any end result.

Surprising... and, at least in my books, impressive.

Bobblehead · 06-06-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

First, it wasn't the Minister that wasn't there. It was another Conservative member who had a question who didn't show up. They should have just gone to Question #2 instead.

Lets see:

Quote:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who wasn't even in the House when his budget was passed, seemed to be enjoying the appearance of "unanimity" for the budget.

Although he does appear to have been there later for question period.

Interestingly, The CBC and CTV seem to have different reports:

Quote:

At one point, the Liberal finance critic, John McCallum, tried to debate the budget but was told it was too late and the budget had already been passed.

If the CTV report is correct, then kudos to the Conservatives.

And I don't think it is OK to "play games", but I do think all the parties should be aware of the rules, and if they are caught with their pants down I feel it should reflect poorly on the party and not on Parliament as a whole.

RedMan12 · 06-06-2006, 04:23 PM

sounds Bush League. George W. Bush League.

GreenTeaFrapp · 06-06-2006, 05:26 PM

Sounds to me like the Liberals and NDP made a "mistake" that allowed them to not have to worry about going back to the polls, where the Conservatives could win a majority, while not taking a public position that they supported the budget.

Hack&Lube · 06-06-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

First, it wasn't the Minister that wasn't there. It was another Conservative member who had a question who didn't show up. They should have just gone to Question #2 instead.

Next, why is it okay to play these games? Shouldn't politicians be above it on an ethics level? The games all seem so childish and would never be respected or put up with in business. It's no wonder politicians don't get respect when they pull all these stunts.

The minister was also not there according to the news story. Thats what he referred to.

calculoso · 06-06-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Lets see:

Although he does appear to have been there later for question period.

My mistake. Must have missed that part.

Azure · 06-06-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedMan12

sounds Bush League. George W. Bush League.

Yep, pretty smart, aren't they?

ernie · 06-07-2006, 06:52 AM

I'd imagine the reason the Finance minister wasn't on hand was because is was expected that it would go to a vote next week. It essentially never went to a vote and was simply passed because on the third reading no one had anything to say against it. Completely unexpected.

Resolute 14 · 06-07-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Sounds to me like the Liberals and NDP made a "mistake" that allowed them to not have to worry about going back to the polls, where the Conservatives could win a majority, while not taking a public position that they supported the budget.

The Bloq had already said they would support the budget. The Liberals and NDP could have voted against it with the same result.

Personally, I find this completely hilarious. As others have said, someone on the opposition needs to know the rules.

That said, could you imagine the outcry if something like this happened on the third reading of a bill to, say, redefine marriage back to it's traditional meaning?