Will the government fall?

[fredr123]

Today the budget bill is up for vote in the House of Commons. The CPC has been pushing hard to bring down the government by defeating this bill in a vote of non-confidence. However, now there's been talk about voting for the main bill but against the amendments added in large part thanks to the NDP.

So how do you think the vote will go down today? Will the bill pass? Will the Conservatives defeat the government and force a new election?

My personal feeling is that the budget will pass. If anything the amendment might fail. Should that be the case I think the Liberals will refuse to accept that as a vote of non-confidence especially if the main bill passes.

What's your prediction for the final voting numbers? These topic seems ripe for a poll...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Nope, I don't think it will fall. I think the final vote comes in and the Liberals are still in power.

[Cheese]

No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Cheese@May 19 2005, 10:39 AM
No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

And how would they do that, exactly?

[RedHot25]

What time is the vote roughly scheduled for? Do we even know...?

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by MarchHare+May 19 2005, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ May 19 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@May 19 2005, 10:39 AM
No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

And how would they do that, exactly? [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I 2nd that question. Can they technically do that - or once they are defeated on a non-confidence vote, don't they automatically have to resign? I am not sure of the technicalities and rules (and I am talking the rules, not anything else pls...).

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Cheese@May 19 2005, 09:39 AM
No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

I wouldnt put it past Martin to try, but I think constitutionally, if a confidence bill fails, the government automatically falls.

That said, both the budget and the bribe will pass. Of the two independants who will decide this thing, at least one of them is going to vote with the Liberals out of self preservation. Why vote yourself out of office?

[AaronSJ]

The vote is scheduled for 5:45 pm Eastern time or 3:45 pm Calgary time.

I predict that the 152 Conservatives and Bloc will vote against the 2nd budget, while the 151 Liberals and NDP will vote for it. Carolyn Parrish, who has recently fallen ill, will vote with the Liberals to save her job. Independent Chuck Cadman has said that he'll vote according to his constituents, and the rumour is that a poll has them 77% to 23% in favor of the budget. That would give the Liberals 153 votes (50%), which would likely be enough, as the speaker would vote in case of a tie and would side with the Liberals. There is also one more vote outstanding, Independent David Kilgour, and no one knows which way he'll vote. However I think the budget will pass by the narrowest of margins, and there won't be an election in 2005.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Cheese@May 19 2005, 04:39 PM
No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

Uhhh as far as I understand it, that's not possible. If a vote concerning funding/money is defeated then we're going to have an election.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RedHot25@May 19 2005, 09:43 AM
What time is the vote roughly scheduled for? Do we even know...?

3:30. CTV will have it live, presumably along with every other station in Canada.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by fredr123@May 19 2005, 04:33 PM
My personal feeling is that the budget will pass. If anything the amendment might fail. Should that be the case I think the Liberals will refuse to accept that as a vote of non-confidence especially if the main bill passes.

I believe that if the amendment fails then it is a no-confidence matter because it's still a monetary/funding issue and therefore the gov't would fall. I could be wrong but that's based on what I've read.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 19 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 19 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@May 19 2005, 04:39 PM
No confidence but Liberals ignore it and keep ruling.

Uhhh as far as I understand it, that's not possible. If a vote concerning funding/money is defeated then we're going to have an election. [/b][/quote]
Nope...they are not "forced" to call an election on a non confidence vote. It happened this way I think in the early 1900s...cant remember the PM at that time.

It is simply "suggested" that if there is no confidence that the Government resign....but it is not mandatory.

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Cheese+May 19 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cheese @ May 19 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Uhhh as far as I understand it, that's not possible. If a vote concerning funding/money is defeated then we're going to have an election.

Nope...they are not "forced" to call an election on a non confidence vote. It happened this way I think in the early 1900s...cant remember the PM at that time.

It is simply "suggested" that if there is no confidence that the Government resign....but it is not mandatory. [/b][/quote]
Do you have a link for that, Cheese? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but seeing that we have a couple of different opinions on this, it might help (I wlould search, but I am in the midst of getting ready for an interview off and on here).

[Cheese]

Originally posted by RedHot25+May 19 2005, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedHot25 @ May 19 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Nope...they are not "forced" to call an election on a non confidence vote. It happened this way I think in the early 1900s...cant remember the PM at that time.

It is simply "suggested" that if there is no confidence that the Government resign....but it is not mandatory.

Do you have a link for that, Cheese? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but seeing that we have a couple of different opinions on this, it might help (I wlould search, but I am in the midst of getting ready for an interview off and on here). [/b][/quote]
havent found the PM yet that ignored it...but heres a link to a recent story...

"If a motion passes . . . that clearly says the government should resign; how could they say that's not confidence?" Jay Hill said.

But he struggled when pressed to explain what he could do if Prime Minister Paul Martin ignores the vote result.

"I think it will be up to the Canadian people and the people in the media to convince him otherwise," he replied.

Appeals to the media and public might be the only device in the opposition's political toolbox. The Constitution apparently offers little help.

Three experts said the government would not be forced to resign if they lost the vote on Thursday's motion. But the Liberals would be skating on thin ice by ignoring the vote result, all agreed.

One expert used a decidedly more colourful metaphor to underscore the seriousness of the vote.

"The prime minister can say it's not a confidence motion because it doesn't say 'confidence,' " said Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University.


Link


other bits...

On Thursday, the Speaker of the House endorsed a Conservative Party effort to hold a vote of confidence in the government by May 18.

The Tory-sponsored motion asked the Commons Finance committee "to recommend that the government resign."

But House Leader Tony Valeri shrugged it off, saying the motion is only a procedural matter that has no binding effect on the government and that the Liberals would not step down from power if it should pass.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

That's talking about something completely different Cheese.

Last week they passed a vote recommending the gov't resign. They were not forced to do so because it was not a clearcut confidence matter.

This week it's a budget vote. That is a clear confidence matter because it's about money and a much different case then the vote last week.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

That the government would resign after losing a confidence vote is a matter of convention, not law.

In theory, the government could choose not to resign. In practice it would never happen.

Convention is a huge part of our consitution, and if a government were to ignore that practice they'd essentially be throwing the constitution out the window.

It could - and no doubt would - be challenged in court.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 19 2005, 01:17 PM
That's talking about something completely different Cheese.

Last week they passed a vote recommending the gov't resign. They were not forced to do so because it was not a clearcut confidence matter.

This week it's a budget vote. That is a clear confidence matter because it's about money and a much different case then the vote last week.

Yep I understand that FDW...and I dont have the time to find the right link...but the same rule stands. They arent forced to resign even on a budgetary nc vote.

[Mike F]

Cadman has all but said that he'll vote with the Liberals after a poll in his riding found that only 23% of his constituents wanted an election now.

Link

And it should be added that his riding is in BC -- i.e. in the West, not Ontario.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think its going to be deadlocked, and the speaker will vote for the Liberal's. Unfortunately, we'll be stuck with this government til at least til the non conclusion/conclusions come out of Gomery.

Plenty of time for the Liberal's to plow more money into the ridings that they can buy seats from.

The only hope for me, is Martin (surprisingly) keeps his word and calls an election after Gomery, and the Liberal's lose more seats, making the NDP alliance meaningless.

[Shawnski]

Cheese, perhaps you are thinking about the King-Byng Affair? Different situation, if you are.

The King-Byng Affair refers to a 1926 Canadian constitutional crisis that occurred when the Governor General of Canada, Lord Byng of Vimy refused a request by the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, to dissolve parliament and call a general election.

King-Byng Thing

Prof. Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser University is a constitutional expert. He writes:

It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose a vote of confidence in the House.

There are three generally-agreed categories of confidence votes:
• a motion that explicitly states the confidence (or lack of it) of the House in the government of the day
• votes on the main budget motion and on the address in reply to the speech from the throne
• any other matter that the government states to be a matter of confidence before a vote

Votes of Confidence