Senate finance committee

I have recently been watching the Senate finance committee examine Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. They are very slow at it because Liberal Senators do not like the bill. Liberal MPs didn’t like the bill either but they received instructions from their leader Michael Ignatieff not to stall the bill. Liberal Senators are known for not following their leader. For example, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny recently wrote an op-ed in which he defended CSIS chief Richard Fadden about his espionage allegations and actually appeared to contradict his party’s message on this issue when he said “Fadden did Canadians a service by pointing out that too many Canadian politicians are effectively on other countries' dole.” That is a clear contradiction of the Liberal position that Fadden’s allegations are unfounded.

So it is evident that Liberal Senators have a tendency not to follow the party line. As a result there are a number of Liberal Senators who actively wanted Bill C-9 to be split into multiple bills and studied individually. They were disregarding the fact that a parliamentary crisis would ensue if they succeeded in doing this. Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray also wanted to break up the bill. Murray considers this bill an affront to parliament. I wouldn’t go that far but putting so much budget-unrelated content into a budget bill is very questionable.

During the committee meeting Ned Franks said in relation to the confidence issue of Bill C-9 that numerous financial bills have been defeated in the past in Canadian parliament and the government did not fall. Now Ned Franks is a parliamentary expert and knows in detail all the legislative history of Canada’s parliament all the way back to Confederation. But I found that comment odd. Most of those years he has studied had majority governments in which financial bills are never defeated. And my impression is that in the case of minority parliaments, if a financial bill is defeated then in most cases the government falls. My impression is that only if the bill does not meet the criteria as being “supply” would the government not fall if the bill were defeated. “Loss of supply” is an undisputed loss of confidence when it occurs. There was a case in 1967 when a financial bill the Liberal minority government introduced was defeated because it did not have support of any other party in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Lester Pearson was out of the country when the bill was defeated and there were serious questions at the time about whether the government had fallen or not when the bill was defeated. The government declared it was not a matter of confidence and continued governing and an election was not called until 1968. But this must surely be the exception and not the rule. The Liberals were defeated over a budget in 1974 when it is believed they purposefully introduced a budget that the NDP could not support in order for there to be a reason to call an election in which they believed they could get a majority government. When the Trudeau government was defeated over the 1974 budget, it was clearly a loss of supply and the government fell. The Liberals only stayed in power because they won a majority government in the ensuing election. So I do not see how there has been an opportunity in Canadian parliamentary history for there to have been numerous financial bills defeated in which the government did not fall and so I am unsure what Franks was referring to. It is possible that Franks is referring to times that budget bills have been defeated in the Senate. But again I think there is limited opportunity for this to have occurred because it has been quite rare in Canadian history that one party has a majority in the House of Commons and another party has a majority in the Senate. This anomaly would have been the case throughout much of the Mulroney years but I’m quite certain no such bill was defeated by the Senate then. Another possibility that occurred to me was did such a thing happen during the Diefenbaker years? Again that does not seem likely so I am unsure as to why Franks was referring to when he made that comment about budget bills being defeated.

The funniest thing Franks said was when he referred to a bill that legislated on navigable rivers. He said that he actually prefers non-navigable rivers because he likes going white water rafting!

Obama and Gary Coleman

I would like to discuss a famous actor who passed away recently. RIP to Gary Coleman. He was a great actor and I shall always remember him for the time he played himself in an episode of the Simpsons and for the voice he played in the game the Curse of Monkey Island (Monkey Island 3). In the Curse of Monkey Island Coleman played the voice of a bratty lemonade sales boy who scams his customers by using a literally bottomless mug that sits on a hole in the table. The lemonade he poured after the customer paid a nickel went to the ground and the customer is scammed when they find the mug empty. The game’s hero, Guybrush Threepwood, switched the bottomless mug for a real mug and when Kenny pours the lemonade into this mug Guybrush gets to drink it. Kenny storms off in a fit as a result of this. Later, however, Kenny sees the error of his ways and runs a legitimate cannon sales business that Guybrush buys several cannons from.

In politics, I am perturbed by Barack Obama’s poor approval numbers. I do not know if it is because of the Gulf oil spill, a still-recovering economy, or lingering unpopularity of his health care reform, but many Americans in my view are too quickly forgetting how much worse things were under George W. Bush. In regards to Obama’s lingering unpopularity over health care, this is unfortunately the case because the Democrats may have won the legislative battle but by then they had long since lost the media battle with the Republicans. The Republicans by the summer of 2009 had already gotten their negative story on the health care bill to be a largely accepted belief among many Americans. Democrats fighting back failed to reverse the minds of many who had been convinced by the massive Republican misinformation. This is harming Obama’s presidency far too much despite the fact that the health care bill he signed is needed, long overdue, and contains none of the Republican negative characteristics attributed to it. As I’ve said, Obama’s health care bill is only a first step in the effort the cover all Americans for health care. Republicans really ought to show more care for the poor who cannot get adequate coverage but then that would not be a typical Republican thing to do, the party that likes to ignore the poor. What concerns me as well is that no matter how much the economy continues to improve in the United States, voters do not give him credit for the recovery and in surveys continue to treat Obama as though the United States in is deep recession. Meanwhile in Canada it is equally disheartening how large a lead the federal Conservatives have taken in the polls over the Liberals. Now is a difficult time to be a Liberal much in the same way that in the US it is a difficult time to be a Democrat. One can hope for improvements in the future.