It's budget day. Will the government fall?

Check out the Goodale's new shoes, and lock up all the reporters - it's budget day in Canada.

But, please, please - no wagering.

What will the House say?

let me get this straight: today the Liberals introduce the budget, which will presumably be hundreds of pages long, then after a relatively brief shouting match they vote on it later today? It doesn't seem like they'd have time to read the thing. I know that's how things are done in the U.S., but I kinda figured it would be different here.

Regardless of the timeline, I'd be surprised to see the government fall. Harper's been making an ass of himself lately, so I don't see the Alliance welcoming another election, and the Bloc and NDP don't have the numbers to bring down the government, do they?

and I really can't see the NDP or the Bloc making common cause with the Alliance.

Besides, knowing Martin, I'm sure he's put in a little something for everyone.

What would happen would be that the House refused to give it "first reading". First reading is generally a formality (followed by second reading, which sends bills to committee for study, and third reading, which passes them).

If the House refuses first reading on a bill that is regarded, by tradition/convention, as a matter of confidence, the government falls. Same if the government specifically designates one of its bills as a matter of confidence.

Budgets are the ultimate matters of confidence. Denying first reading would definitely be non-confidence: it would be refusing to allow the government's proposal for the spending of public money, i.e. the running of the country, to go forward for study by the House and its committees.

I'd thought the CBC might have one of its in-depthers on the budget process, but I'm not seeing anything there.

A Cabinet Minister or backbench Member proposing a bill first moves for the House's "leave" to introduce it. This is given automatically and without debate or vote. Next comes the motion that the bill be read a first time and printed. This also is automatic and without debate or vote. On a later day comes the motion for second reading. This is the stage at which Members debate the principle of the bill. If it passes second reading, it goes to a committee of the House, usually a standing committee. Each such committee may hear witnesses, and considers the bill, clause by clause, before reporting it (with or without amendments) back to the House. These committees have between seven and 15 members, and the parties are represented in proportion to their strength in the House itself. Some bills, such as appropriation bills (based on the Estimates), which seek to withdraw money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, are dealt with by the whole House acting as a committee.


Committees, sitting under less formal rules than the House, examine bills clause by clause. Each clause has to be passed. Any member of the committee can move amendments. When all the clauses have been dealt with, the chairperson reports the bill to the House with any amendments that have been adopted.

When a committee has reported the bill to the House, Members at this "report stage" may move amendments to the various clauses (usually, amendments they have not had the opportunity to propose in committee). When these have been passed, or rejected, the bill goes to third reading. If the motion for third reading carries, the bill goes to the Senate, where it goes through much the same process. Bills initiated in the Senate and passed there come to the Commons, and go through the same stages as Commons bills. No bill can become law (become an Act) unless it has been passed in identical form by both Houses and has been assented to, in the Queen's name, by the Governor General or a deputy of the Governor General (usually a Supreme Court judge). Assent has never been refused to a federal bill, and our first Prime Minister declared roundly that refusal was obsolete and had become unconstitutional. In Britain, Royal Assent has never been refused since 1707.


(I found this on the Government's site under How Canadians Govern: page 4 and 5)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/what_goes_on_04-e.asp

Next comes the motion that the bill be read a first time and printed. This also is automatic and without debate or vote.

First vote is traditionally automatic, but not necessarily automatic.

I was in the House gallery (1990?) when a private member's bill to re-introduce restrictions on access to abortion into the Criminal Code was introduced in the House, and it wasn't given first reading, on an extremely unusual roll call vote.

... Can't find the damned thing in Hansard, but I like this:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/Han034-E.PDF

PETITIONS
HEALTH
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 260 concerned constituents of mine in my riding of Cambridge. The petitioners underscore that complete information on the health risks of abortion should be provided to all women when considering this action. The petitioners hold that physicians who perform abortions without the informed consent by the mother or perform abortions that are not medically necessary should face penalties.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament support legislation calling for a woman's right to know, and I agree with them.

The Speaker: I have chastised the hon. member before for this. If he persists, he will find he does not get recognized for presenting petitions and then he will really feel the pain.

Hmm, forgive the source (a Campaign Life Coalition brief) ...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/lega-e/witn-e/coalition-e.htm

For example: M.P. Don Boudria in 1989, introduced a Private Members Bill, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, (destruction of the foetus), which called for life imprisonment for performing an abortion and 5 years for criminal negligence in this regard.

I dunno, it was my recollection that it didn't get first reading, but my memory may be dimmer than I thought ... it may have been the 1990 Tory bill I was watching the vote on, and it may have been the fact that there was debate on first reading that was so unusual. I *do* recall that it was a free vote. Continuing along this tangent, we do sometimes forget how close we can be to big whopping violations of our rights up here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/abortion/

1990: The federal government, led by Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney, introduces Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk. The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the Senate after a tie vote.

are enjoying their sense of power and I don't think they're willing to give that up so soon, especially given that according to the latest polls, Martin would come back in with a majority government.

I think they'll stand.

Such as the tax relief for under $10,000

...and a boost in military spending. Not bad so far....

Any mention of money going into R&D??? I couldn't find anything on the CBC.

it has enough of 'something for everyone' to pass. It actually is a good budget as it relates to issues I support like the increase in funding on environmental issues, the day care monies, the increase in defense spending even a small, one might even say minute, tax cut.

If this generates a boost in the polls for them, they'll go to the country.

call an election as opposed to being forced through a 'non-confidence' motion. Canadians have NO appitite for another election and all parties know that whoever would cause one would be punished at the polls.

I suspect this government will last at least till next spring.

If the Liberals play their cards right, they could engineer a trap for Harper, in which they let the government fall and he takes the blame.

were Clark's minority Progressive Conservative(remember them?)government in 1979 and Trudeau's Liberal minority in 1974. I know that Clark fell over an increase in the gas tax (which the Liberals denounced and then kept anyway when they got a majority in 1980), but why did the Trudeau minority fall in '74? I know that they were the first Canadian gov't to be defeated in the House on a budget, but what was it that cost them the support of the NDP at that point?

And would the fact that the NDP lost more than half of its seats in the subsuquent snap election help keep them in line this time?