Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The government is falling! The government is falling!
Paul Martin, who isn't often correct on much, was entirely correct to refuse to resign in the aftermath of yesterday's Commons vote.
Before we go any further, let's examine the text of the motion that the Commons passed last night (thanks be, as usual, unto Paul Wells for, on an internet whose Canadian bits are positively abuzz over this motion, being one of the very very few people to actually post its text): "That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Thursday, October 28, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service addressed in the report."
The House of Commons did not call on the government to resign; it merely called on a committee to recommend that the government resign, said recommendation to then be subject to debate, and ultimately a vote, in the Commons. Voting in favour of such a motion is not at all the same thing as saying that the government has lost your confidence - it's possible, for example, that an MP would vote in favour of this motion merely to force the non-confidence motion that the Liberals are so contemptably dodging with their manipulation of the Commons orders, but that the same MP would vote against the non-confidence motion itself. For this reason, the motion that the House of Commons passed cannot be considered the equivalent of "That the government be called upon to resign". As such, there does not exist any law or convention requiring the government to resign (incidentally, on this point I stand in agreement with a large majority of genuine constitutional scholars).
Legalities aside, does there exist a moral obligation of the government to resign? After all, you and I both know (hell, Paul Martin himself probably knows, what with his extensive research staff and all) that the MP to whom I alluded above is fictitious, and that the 153 MPs who voted in favour of last night's motion did so because they wanted the government to fall.
I will be the first to agree that, if the House of Commons has clearly lost confidence in the government, the government should resign even if no formal non-confidence motion has been passed. However, if last night's vote showed us anything, it's that the House of Commons - by the slimmest of majorities - actually retains confidence in the government, since it's now clear that all three independents are with the government on this point (132 Liberals + 19 New Democrats + 3 Independents = 154 > half of the House's present membership).
So, to sum up
1. The House of Commons has not formally indicated a lack of confidence in the government, therefore the government is not legally obligated to resign.
2. There is no evidence that the House of Commons as a whole has lost confidence in the government, therefore there is no moral obligation for the government to resign (at least not on the basis of having lost the confidence of the House).
Mustafa's uncharacteristic histrionics aside, Paul Martin has taken the correct course of action.
Blunder on, Paul.
|
Paul Martin, who isn't often correct on much, was entirely correct to refuse to resign in the aftermath of yesterday's Commons vote.
Before we go any further, let's examine the text of the motion that the Commons passed last night (thanks be, as usual, unto Paul Wells for, on an internet whose Canadian bits are positively abuzz over this motion, being one of the very very few people to actually post its text): "That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Thursday, October 28, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service addressed in the report."
The House of Commons did not call on the government to resign; it merely called on a committee to recommend that the government resign, said recommendation to then be subject to debate, and ultimately a vote, in the Commons. Voting in favour of such a motion is not at all the same thing as saying that the government has lost your confidence - it's possible, for example, that an MP would vote in favour of this motion merely to force the non-confidence motion that the Liberals are so contemptably dodging with their manipulation of the Commons orders, but that the same MP would vote against the non-confidence motion itself. For this reason, the motion that the House of Commons passed cannot be considered the equivalent of "That the government be called upon to resign". As such, there does not exist any law or convention requiring the government to resign (incidentally, on this point I stand in agreement with a large majority of genuine constitutional scholars).
Legalities aside, does there exist a moral obligation of the government to resign? After all, you and I both know (hell, Paul Martin himself probably knows, what with his extensive research staff and all) that the MP to whom I alluded above is fictitious, and that the 153 MPs who voted in favour of last night's motion did so because they wanted the government to fall.
I will be the first to agree that, if the House of Commons has clearly lost confidence in the government, the government should resign even if no formal non-confidence motion has been passed. However, if last night's vote showed us anything, it's that the House of Commons - by the slimmest of majorities - actually retains confidence in the government, since it's now clear that all three independents are with the government on this point (132 Liberals + 19 New Democrats + 3 Independents = 154 > half of the House's present membership).
So, to sum up
1. The House of Commons has not formally indicated a lack of confidence in the government, therefore the government is not legally obligated to resign.
2. There is no evidence that the House of Commons as a whole has lost confidence in the government, therefore there is no moral obligation for the government to resign (at least not on the basis of having lost the confidence of the House).
Mustafa's uncharacteristic histrionics aside, Paul Martin has taken the correct course of action.
Blunder on, Paul.
