[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

So, it's a case of Harper having no particular influence over this guy, possibly being mildly embarrassed by the bill, and hoping it will go away as quietly as possible?

there's a procedure wich an MP can use to have a debate on his private bill.  In the Canadian parliament, no MP needs the approval of the Whip to have his bill studied by the parliament in 1st reading.  That's why you had oppostion parties presenting private bills when the Conservatives where a minority.

Then the bill is voted to be on the agenda, it's the 1st reading.  If successfull, it goes to parliamentary commissions to be studied, then goes back to house of commons to be voted into a law wich will receive the royal sanction.

This bill won't survive the 1st vote.

1 year ago, I would have said the Tories were too intelligent to let this happen, but seeing their actions lately, everything is possible.  So, maybe, I can be wrong on this one.

More or less correct.  First reading is basically automatic based on the procedure.  The rubber hits the road on whether it gets past second reading.  If it passes second reading then it goes on to committee.  If it passes the Committee stage then it goes back for a third reading.

This is the stage I think the Bill is at:

Unlike a public bill, which is founded on reasons of public policy and which the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms the principle, the expediency of a private bill is mainly founded upon assertions to be proven in committee. The practice is for the House to agree to the second reading of a private bill; in doing so, it affirms the principle of the private bill, subject to a committee finding that the assertions set down in the preamble are true.[108] The amendments which can be moved at second reading are the same as those which can be moved to the motion for second reading of a public bill (a hoist amendment, a reasoned amendment, and a motion to discharge the order for second reading).

[Jacob]

You are the one that just suggested the Speaker was part of the Conservative cabal controlling the agenda.  Now if it were the case that the Speaker was not acting independently as that Office must then that would indeed be a story.

I never claimed to be an expert on parliamentary procedures at all, and I'll readily confess to being unclear on whether parliamentary shenanigans can be employed at any given point in the legislative process. If Harper wants nothing to do with this bill, when and how does he make that clear? Send it to committee to die? Instruct the party to vote down when it comes up for a second reading? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that Harper ultimately does have a lot to say on whether an abortion bill is passed. Now, if he has no tools at his disposal to prevent a private members bill from being presented that's fair enough - I was under the impression that he would have some tools, but if you say that he doesn't I'll certainly take your word for it.

As for the Speaker of the House, I was under the impression that he was generally (i.e. not directed specifically at this particular speaker, but the position in general) amenable to the governments agenda, but again if you tell me that's not the case I'll believe you.

Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I do expect Harper to have some influence over the members of his party. I do think it's somewhat uncharitable of you to interpret that expectation as advocating conspiracy theories.

[crazy canuck]

I never claimed to be an expert on parliamentary procedures at all, and I'll readily confess to being unclear on whether parliamentary shenanigans can be employed at any given point in the legislative process.

But you sure are ready to read in the worst possible interpretation based on your limited knowledge.

As Viper and I have already pointed out - although you probably didnt read it before posting this, the Bill got to this point automatically.  As I said, it would have been a real story if it hadnt because that would have meant that Harper really does excercise the kind of control Josephus says he has and which you implied.

[Jacob]

there's a procedure wich an MP can use to have a debate on his private bill.  In the Canadian parliament, no MP needs the approval of the Whip to have his bill studied by the parliament in 1st reading.  That's why you had oppostion parties presenting private bills when the Conservatives where a minority.

Then the bill is voted to be on the agenda, it's the 1st reading.  If successfull, it goes to parliamentary commissions to be studied, then goes back to house of commons to be voted into a law wich will receive the royal sanction.

This bill won't survive the 1st vote.

1 year ago, I would have said the Tories were too intelligent to let this happen, but seeing their actions lately, everything is possible.  So, maybe, I can be wrong on this one.

Alright, so if Harper and the conservative leadership doesn't like this, the bill will die either after being voted on after the first reading (i.e. should it be on the agenda), because it never emerges from committee again or possibly on the vote following the second reading. Most likely, the further along the process it is, the more notice it will likely get as well.

If Harper wanted to prevent the bill from being introduced at all, he'd have to rely on party discipline... withholding whatever funding and staffing the party provides come next election, consideration for parliamentary positions and old-fashioned dirty looks and shunning, that sort of stuff; either that or some sort of persuasion "don't introduce this, it'll make us look bad."

He hasn't done this successfully, either because he doesn't have the resources (maybe the MP in question has the strong backing of his riding association, so the central party organization has little pull) or because the resources in question aren't worth spending because the bill will get killed after the first reading and potential Conservative voters who care will have forgotten by the next election because it's just a minor blip?

[Jacob]

But you sure are ready to read in the worst possible interpretation based on your limited knowledge.

Just like how you read my posts 

As Viper and I have already pointed out - although you probably didnt read it before posting this, the Bill got to this point automatically.  As I said, it would have been a real story if it hadnt because that would have meant that Harper really does excercise the kind of control Josephus says he has and which you implied.

Not much news in something that doesn't happen. We never heard about how the Hon. member for Kitchener didn't introduce abortion related bills while he was a member of parliament during the Conservative minority government. I wonder why he didn't introduce such bills at that time; I doubt that his interest in the status of fetuses dates only from 2011.

BTW, on "controlling backbenchers" and maintaining party discipline - this isn't something I'm laying particularly at Harper's feet. I understand that Chretien was pretty good at it.

That said, don't you think private members' bills should be included in the evaluation of a party and a party leader? If some NDP member of parliament introduces a private bill that is outrageously socialist in nature (I don't know, nationalizing the oil industry or something), wouldn't you use that when assessing whether the new leader and the party as a whole was ready to be a responsible government party? Or would you ignore it because as a private member's bill it would be beyond the control of the party leader?

[HVC]

I doubt the conservatives have a vast conspiracy mainly becasue they keep messing up their piddly little schemes and getting caught

[Jacob]

I doubt the conservatives have a vast conspiracy mainly becasue they keep messing up their piddly little schemes and getting caught

CC will disappointed to hear that. He's a firm believer in vast-conspiracy-believers.

[Jacob]

A paper on the impact of the robocalls and other demobilization on the 2011 election: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/robocalls.pdf

Further analysis of that leads to the conclusion that the Conservatives would've had a minority government: http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/3008313.html



Let's hope that this analysis is erroneous and Canadian democracy was not subverted.

[Malthus]

A paper on the impact of the robocalls and other demobilization on the 2011 election: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/robocalls.pdf

Further analysis of that leads to the conclusion that the Conservatives would've had a minority government: http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/3008313.html



Let's hope that this analysis is erroneous and Canadian democracy was not subverted.

I can't follow the fellow's statistical analyis - all Greek to me - but I simply cannot buy that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn where there is no way of knowing how many such calls were actually made, and how many people actually did not vote because of them, other than mere guesswork.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I'm a little skeptical about the analysis as well though it's more of a gut feeling than anything beyond that. Hopefully the analysis will get enough circulation that someone reputable can render it comprehensible enough for the likes of us to decide whether it's credible or not.

[Josephus]

 Conspiracy Theorist 

[Jacob]

I can't follow the fellow's statistical analyis - all Greek to me - but I simply cannot buy that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn where there is no way of knowing how many such calls were actually made, and how many people actually did not vote because of them, other than mere guesswork.

Well, from a quick skim it seems that the methodology is to look at ridings where robo-calls were alleged and compare voter turnout to those where there are no robo-calls alleged, and comparing. I guess it's not that far fetched (if other factors are controlled for) to conclude that voter turnout was lower amongst certain groups in places where robo-calls are alleged to have taken place, without knowing the exact number of robo-calls happened.

[Oexmelin]

Is it really far-fetched, and conspiracy-theoristic, considering the iron fist with which Harper's entourage has managed the Commons agenda *and* party discipline so far (i.e., no one is saying anything of substance without the PM's direct approval, and that includes now government agencies), to think he's throwing a bone to his base without too much cost to what he expected to be his larger constituency? I have read the exact same thing from not-so-conspiracy-theorists political pundits (i.e. Chantal Hébert).

[crazy canuck]

Does everyone with a leftist agenda suddenly forget how parliament works when it suits their purpose.

[Jacob]

Does everyone with a leftist agenda suddenly forget how parliament works when it suits their purpose.

Is a he-can't-keep-the-nutters-in-line really a better narrative for Harper than he's-throwing-a-tiny-bone-to-a-particular-constituency? Or do you really think that Conservative private members' bills shouldn't be considered when one evaluates the Conservative party and its leader?

I mean the last bit is fine too, but I expect that you'll maintain the same stance in the face of whatever hippie flavoured private bills that individual NDP members of parliament put forth as well