Snark has become redundant.
Liberals sign off on emergency $3-billion stimulus fund
I can hear y'all asking about that Liberal motion that demanded information on how the $3 billion would be spent:Only three weeks ago, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff insisted he would never support the fund without some advance idea of how it would be spent. He was adamant despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper's warning that the fund constituted a confidence matter and that opposition parties would "find themselves in an election" if they blocked it.
"I am not writing a blank cheque on $3-billion. No Canadian would respect me if I did," Mr. Ignatieff said at the time.
Yet Liberals supported the fund Tuesday even though the government had not provided any of the details they'd demanded.
That motion passed with the support of NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs only moments before the vote on the spending bill.
The Tories voted against the Liberals' non-binding motion and Treasury Board President Vic Toews made it clear that the government won't abide by it.
Emphasis added.
The article contained some parting words from Ignatieff which began with:
I want to make Parliament work but I don't write blank cheques.But you just did.
And this is the alternative to Harper. It makes you realize how really really low we have sunk, don't it?
Oh, Miz 'Dadl, it do, it do make me see how low we are. De-effing-pressing!
Where the money ends up will have to be in the quarterly reports that were mandated in the budget the Libs forced on the Cons - but if Iggys just trying to give Harper enough rope to hang himself, I'ld wish the rope wasn't made with taxpayer's money.
What exactly makes the information motion non-binding? Who says it's non-binding? Did the Libs deliberately phrase it to say "non-binding", or is there some kind of parliamentary tradition that motions of certain types are non-binding, or is this just one of those Con pushes to create a sort of "unitary executive" where they just define by fiat that the will of parliament is supposed to no longer count in this parliamentary system (and the Liberals say nothing), or what?
It's just like the USA, where the "spineless" Democrats let the Repugs get away with the same corporate bullshit that they (the Dems) would also do. Because they're both corporate parties, bought and paid for.
But people continue to believe that the party of enablers are on their side because of the odd rhetorical crumb.
Harper is not going to give any quarterly reports. He'll (if he lasts that long) come up with idiotic excuses and outright refusals and trust that the Liberals won't do anything about it.
"is there some kind of parliamentary tradition that motions of certain types are non-binding?"
Laws are binding. To become a law, a precise process is obligatory, including, finally, Royal Proclamation. In other words, Parliament can pass all the laws it wishes, but if the Executive chooses not to proclaim those laws, they are stillborn.
Motions are not laws, and they do not go through first, second, or third reading. Motions are not binding unless they are enforced.
Motions can be enforced by Parliament by removing the government if it fails to comply with the motion.
There is no other enforcement mechanism.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qPZljBCMXbYC&pg=PR1&dq=tremblay+luc+constitutional+law&ei=IWTKSfrHHJ3CMqa_je0N
Ah. Thanks.
Another feature of the way we do things that makes less sense when there isn't a majority party in parliament.
Having punked out back in December/January he's in no position now to bring down the government. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't a contemptible scumbag.
Laws are binding. To become a law, a precise process is obligatory, including, finally, Royal Proclamation. In other words, Parliament can pass all the laws it wishes, but if the Executive chooses not to proclaim those laws, they are stillborn.
Well, not really - the Governor-General cannot withhold royal assent from Acts of Parliament without being (rightly) accused of usurping the parliamentary supremecy.