Motion of No Confidence in Canada (Harper isn't going)

[Straha]

Watching the debate in the House of Commons right now. Gilles Duceppe (so dreamy) is speaking right now, and the debate is set to get hot in a few minutes I think.

Bells on Parliament Hill will call MPs back to the House of Commons Friday afternoon for a vote expected to send Canadians to the polls.

MPs are voting on a Liberal Party motion of non-confidence that could bring down the government.

Tributes to Speaker Peter Milliken, marking what is probably his last day in the Commons, have delayed the vote originally scheduled for 1:30 p.m. ET. It is now expected around 2 p.m.

In a debate on the motion Friday morning, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff urged MPs to defeat the Conservatives.

"A government that breaks the rules and conceals the facts from the Canadian people does not deserve to remain in office," he said.

The motion says the House agrees with a Commons committee report tabled earlier this week that found the government in contempt of Parliament, "which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently the House has lost confidence in the Government."

NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe say they support the Liberal motion. The three parties combined have enough votes to bring down the government and plunge Canadians into an election.

Speaking for the Tories, Government House Leader John Baird said the opposition is ending the work of a Parliament that's gotten a lot done recently.

"The Liberal members over there claimed to have found that the government has done something wrong," Baird said. "What they aren't telling Canadians is that this was an opposition-stacked committee who used the tyranny of the majority to get the predetermined outcome they wanted."

Earlier this week, the procedure and House affairs committee tabled a report that said the government is in contempt of parliament for refusing to supply enough information on the cost of the F-35 fighter jets, their justice system reforms and their projections for corporate profits and tax rates.

If Friday's vote is successful, the government will be defeated.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to speak in the foyer of the House of Commons after the vote. He could go to Governor General David Johnston on Saturday morning to request Parliament be dissolved and an election be called for either May 2 or May 9.

Edited the title because fuck. --Lagmonster

[Straha]

As a side note you can watch the debate as it goes here.

[Zeond]

I am not too confident that this is a good idea right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a change in government away from the conservatives but the opposition parties still have to get their act together and the liberals suffer from a very weak and unpopular leader. On top of that, the media will screech about the unnecessary election costing taxpayers millions which will hurt the opposition and it has successfully created an image, whether it is true or not, that people are reluctant to go to the polls more often than every 4 or 5 years. At least campaigns are mercifully short.

I've yet to see any recent polling numbers but a poll a couple of months ago suggested that a majority government may be in Harper's reach which would only result in the removal of any obstructions to Canada's conversion into USA 2.0.

British Columbia could be interesting to watch as the federal government is not too popular right now due to the imposition of the HST but the media campaign in favour of the HST has been quickly changing people's perceptions about it before the promised non-binding referendum on the HST.

[Straha]

They're gone by six or nine votes.

In response to Zeond: Latest polls show the Conservatives with a nice and tidy lead.

[SCRawl]

Those who support the Conservatives don't really seem to care about their various recent scandals (though they sure as hell still carry a grudge about the sponsorship scandal the Liberals committed several years ago). They aren't doing a terrible job with the country's finances, so a fiscal (c)onservative will see no need to turf them.

I understand the principled stand of the opposition parties here, about how they needed to bring the government down, I really do. The government simply can't act the way they have in Parliament, and mess around with campaign finance laws, and go unchallenged, so a confidence defeat is about the only real bullet that the other parties have in their guns. But this is going to end in another Harper minority, with a few deck chairs re-arranged, unless there's an, er, April surprise waiting to happen.

[Phantasee]

We are well and truly fucked at this moment. Harper and the Conservatives I know have no fear of an election. They are very confident of an easy win, maybe even a majority. The Liberals needed to get another leader a while ago, Ignatieff has almost no chance of being PM.

Such unfortunate timing. At least there is one Conservative MP locally I can support, so I can still get my campaigning fix and work for a guaranteed winner. I hate my MP though, I'll be supporting the Liberal candidate on the side. Assuming they don't get another complete retard, of course.

[Sephirius]

We are well and truly fucked at this moment. Harper and the Conservatives I know have no fear of an election. They are very confident of an easy win, maybe even a majority. The Liberals needed to get another leader a while ago, Ignatieff has almost no chance of being PM.

Good, I hope for a conservative majority. I'm tired of watching the NDP and Libs flop around screeching about anything finance related. As mentioned earlier, the current administration has done a very good job of managing Canada's economy, and I am totally not confident that the NDP or Libs could do any better. The chances of them creating a minority govt are slim without support from the Bloc, and the Bloc will want the rest of Canada to slide some money to their province like a bribe in return (see: the whole Quebec HST thing.)

I don't agree with the shenanigans that have gone on regarding that whole misleading the parliament on that sponsoring debacle, but aside from that we WILL need new fighters (ours are going to be 40 years old by the time the F-35 gets adoped, if it does) and I view that document that was sent around on how to game the system as how business needs to be done when such partisan nonsense is going on from the other coalition members.

[aerius]

Good, I hope for a conservative majority. I'm tired of watching the NDP and Libs flop around screeching about anything finance related. As mentioned earlier, the current administration has done a very good job of managing Canada's economy, and I am totally not confident that the NDP or Libs could do any better.

You're fucking out of mind. Since when is good management defined as turning a $10 billion surplus into a $64 billion deficit? And let's not forget the $75 billion backdoor bailout for the banks. That together with tax cuts blew a giant gaping hole in the budget. Yeah, let's let the banks unload all their dogshit interest only mortgages and securitizations onto the CMHC so that the government and taxpayers can eat all the losses. What could possibly go wrong? It worked so well in the US with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Oh wait, it didn't, it became a $40 billion a month black hole.

I also hope the Conservatives win, but for another reason. They'll get to be the ones in power when the shit hits the fan, and hopefully they'll become unelectable for the next 20 years.

[muse]

I knew there was a good reason for not having a TV anymore, I get to miss all the election stuff and cast a vote which doesn't mean anything on election day. I can hardly wait!

[Ekiqa]

If we actually have a Governor General in office who know's his stuff, there is no need for an election. Ignatieff would be more willing to work with the NDP than Harper has, though maybe Iggy is hopin that in an election he gains some more seats.

I can't see Harper getting a majority, and if he returns with a minority, Parliament wont work with him as PM.

And regarding polls, they can change 20 points or more, depending on the questions. They have no business being reported in the news media as the pollsters themselves recently commented upon.

As a bonus, the motion was Harper's contempt of Parliament, and as it passed, his government became the first government in the history of the Westminster system to be found in contempt of Parliament.

[Phantasee]

What a glorious thing to be known for.

[Enigma]

This is the election in which Iggy and Layton will have to work hard to win. Iggy needs a victory and Layton needs to win back those seats lost from the previous election if not gain more seats if they want to keep their party's confidence in them.

I don't see the Liberals backing Ignatief should the Liberals lose this election, more so if Harper gets his majority.

If the NDP do not gain seats or lose even more seats then Layton will either have to retire or be turfed out by the party.

The only way Harper is if he loses the election. Unless he screws up bad, he's going to stick around in either a minority or majority government.

Who'll win? I do not know nor do I care but I love numbers so I'll be keeping check during the election day\night.

[SCRawl]

Layton has a built-in excuse for not performing up to his supporters' expectations: he's recovering from a hip replacement and cancer treatment. And it's not like there's another politician in their party who's ready to step into his shoes, he's the best they've got by a fair margin.

Ignatieff, though...he's just not a great politician. Chretien was the last strong politician the Liberals have had; Paul Martin was competent, but didn't seem to have the same kind of savvy as his old boss; Dion looked (and kind of acted) like a wimp, and couldn't go toe-to-toe in English; and Ignatieff, for all of his big giant head status (literally -- have you ever seen that thing?) tends to get outclassed by his opponents when it comes to political matters.

I really hope that Ignatieff has been playing rope-a-dope up until now, and will demonstrate that he is the guy to run the country. If he does pull off that miracle, Harper will get eaten alive by his caucus, and we'll be seeing a new guy as the leader of the Conservatives. But I really don't see this happening.

[Magis]

You're fucking out of mind. Since when is good management defined as turning a $10 billion surplus into a $64 billion deficit?

You're living in a dreamworld if you think a Liberal government wouldn't have spent at least as much money as Harper did. If you recall, in Harper's "economic update" back in late 2008, there was no stimulus spending mentioned. That's when the opposition parties threw a fit and started the coalition business.

The Liberals wanted government stimulus intervention just like that which was already happening in other countries: The Liberal leader said the parties reached the accord after watching the "sad spectacle" of other countries' governments acting to counter the "unprecedented" global economic crisis while Harper's Conservatives "sat and did nothing." *

At the time, the opposition was calling for $30 billion in stimulus spending, which was the primary stated focus of the coalition's economic plan:

Layton said the accord's proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy, which includes support for the auto and forestry sectors, is "prompt, prudent, competent and, most important, effective."

"This Parliament has failed to act, and it falls on us to act," Layton said.
...
An economic stimulus package will be the new government's top priority, while other policies include a commitment to improve child benefits and childcare "as finances permit."

*all quotes, in italics, from this CBC news article, dated December 1, 2008:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... talks.html

After the subsequent prorogation, Harper introduced a budget containing roughly $30 billion in stimulus. Hence the deficit. Do you really think that the Liberal/NDP coalition would have spent that money any more responsibly or effectively that Harper did? I doubt it. I also doubt that Harper would have introduced any stimulus measures at all without the threat of defeat by the Opposition parties in 2008 on that very issue.

[Enigma]

Layton has a built-in excuse for not performing up to his supporters' expectations: he's recovering from a hip replacement and cancer treatment. And it's not like there's another politician in their party who's ready to step into his shoes, he's the best they've got by a fair margin.

If he's their best chance then the party has no hope to gain any measurable amount of seats.

Ignatieff, though...he's just not a great politician. Chretien was the last strong politician the Liberals have had; Paul Martin was competent, but didn't seem to have the same kind of savvy as his old boss; Dion looked (and kind of acted) like a wimp, and couldn't go toe-to-toe in English; and Ignatieff, for all of his big giant head status (literally -- have you ever seen that thing?) tends to get outclassed by his opponents when it comes to political matters.

I really hope that Ignatieff has been playing rope-a-dope up until now, and will demonstrate that he is the guy to run the country. If he does pull off that miracle, Harper will get eaten alive by his caucus, and we'll be seeing a new guy as the leader of the Conservatives. But I really don't see this happening.

I took a look at the NDP's election history and forgot that under Layton they went from 19 seats to 37. So if he manages to retain those seats or gain more then he's safe. But if he loses a lot of seats, sick or not his party will be after his head.

With Ignatief, I thought he took part in the 2008 elections but I was wrong, it was Dion who then later was replaced by Ignatief. So this is his first election as party leader. Should be interesting to see how he fares. He's going to have to work hard to turn things around and stop the decline. The party consistently lost seats ever since Chretien retired.

For the Conservatives, to get a majority, they have to work really hard in Quebec and in the Maritimes in order to secure a majority.

Quote tags fixed - SCRawl

[SCRawl]

The Conservatives are going to try and make the big push in Ontario, specifically the greater Toronto area, to make up the difference needed. I think that they've basically given up on large portions of Quebec.

(I've said this before, but the Bloc Quebecois should not exist. A federal party beholden to only one province is an abomination, IMHO.)

[Solauren]

I agree the BQ should not be allowed to run at the Federal level. If they want to run at the provincal level, who cares.

I don't think anyone in Harper's cabient, or Harper himself, should be allowed to run.

I mean, they were found in contempt of Paraliment. Shouldn't that disqualify them for running for Paraliment?

[Koolaidkirby]

I agree the BQ should not be allowed to run at the Federal level. If they want to run at the provincal level, who cares.

I don't think anyone in Harper's cabient, or Harper himself, should be allowed to run.

I mean, they were found in contempt of Paraliment. Shouldn't that disqualify them for running for Paraliment?

IIRC being in found in contempt of Parliament is something that Parliament decides the punishment for.... but seeing as this is the first time this has EVER happened I don't think any punishment exists for it *yet* other than the oppositions calling for a vote of no confidence.

[Artemas]

uh, other people have been found in contempt of parliament guys

this is the first time a government has fallen to it though

but contempt of parliament is a pretty vague charge. basically, if the house THINKS you are being misleading (or holding the house in contempt, whatever that means) you can be charged of it. Even if you haven't actually done anything, all that is required is for the panel to THINK you have. See the RCMP deputy-commissioner a couple of years ago.

[aerius]

You're living in a dreamworld if you think a Liberal government wouldn't have spent at least as much money as Harper did. If you recall, in Harper's "economic update" back in late 2008, there was no stimulus spending mentioned. That's when the opposition parties threw a fit and started the coalition business.

$30 billion in stimulus spending, some of which will actually find its way to the people to help them. Versus $75 billion in handouts to the banks, none of which will stimulate the economy in any way nor find its way to the people. Gee, I wonder which one is less bad.

[Ekiqa]

You're living in a dreamworld if you think a Liberal government wouldn't have spent at least as much money as Harper did. If you recall, in Harper's "economic update" back in late 2008, there was no stimulus spending mentioned. That's when the opposition parties threw a fit and started the coalition business.

$30 billion in stimulus spending, some of which will actually find its way to the people to help them. Versus $75 billion in handouts to the banks, none of which will stimulate the economy in any way nor find its way to the people. Gee, I wonder which one is less bad.

As well as the increased hand outs to Big Oil as well. Though the Liberals would probably continue to do that.

[Magis]

$30 billion in stimulus spending, some of which will actually find its way to the people to help them. Versus $75 billion in handouts to the banks, none of which will stimulate the economy in any way nor find its way to the people. Gee, I wonder which one is less bad.

Are you really so confident that the Liberals would not have conducted some similar market transactions? And, by the way, the government didn't just hand away $75 billion to banks in exchange for nothing as you are implying. The government purchased $75 billion in mortgages that 1) had a value of $75 billion, and 2) were already insured by the federal government. Unless you have some financial figures that indicate that the government has incurred a loss on these purchased assets, you shouldn't be treating it as a $75 billion loss. All of those mortgage payments are now contributing to government receipts.

[Stormin]

Code: Select all

Nanaimo--Alberni 	
    James Lunney **  	CON 	28,930 	46.7 	9,250 	14.9
	Zeni Maartman  	NDP 	19,680 	31.8 		
	John Fryer  	GRN 	7,457 	12 		
	Richard Pesik 	LIB 	5,578 	9 		
	Frank Wagner  	CHP 	176 	0.3 		
	Barbara Biley  	MLPC 	155 	0.3 		

Going by my district's results from the last election I'm voting NDP. I would much prefer to vote Liberal but really I'm voting against Conservative and I want my vote to mean something rather than throwing it to the guy with no chance of winning at all.

[aerius]

Are you really so confident that the Liberals would not have conducted some similar market transactions?

Can I say there's zero chance of the Liberals carrying out the same policy? No. But given past history I can safely say they're a lot less likely to do so than the Conservatives.

And, by the way, the government didn't just hand away $75 billion to banks in exchange for nothing as you are implying. The government purchased $75 billion in mortgages that 1) had a value of $75 billion, and 2) were already insured by the federal government. Unless you have some financial figures that indicate that the government has incurred a loss on these purchased assets, you shouldn't be treating it as a $75 billion loss. All of those mortgage payments are now contributing to government receipts.

Except they're not all mortgages.

"The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) under this program.

These are mortgages pools and mortgage backed securities. As has been demonstrated in the US, MBSs are worth pennies on the dollar once housing prices start falling, so whatever percentage of those purchases were MBSs is pretty much a complete write-off when, not if, when our housing market implodes. Insured mortgage pools means these are NHA loans, that is non-prime loans which require CMHC insurance, we'll get back to this later on.

The mortgage pools themselves won't retain 100% of their value, historically, Canada has seen 30-40% drops in housing prices after bubbles (see early 90's). Back then nearly all mortgages were 20% downpayment, 30% debt to income ratio loans which have a default rate of well under 1% under all but the worst recessions or depressions. This is no longer true, we now have many mortgages floating around with under 5% downpayment and some of them are even interest only or neg-am loans, in other words, these are all subprime and Alt-A loans.

These loans are defaulting real fast in the US and will do so in Canada.

(first chart here if picture doesn't show up) This is how many of them are over 60 days delinquent, of those something like 99% will default.

Banks aren't stupid, you can bet that these are the mortgage pools which they've sold off to the government. They're not going to sell off their prime mortgage loans which are pretty much a guaranteed cash cow, they're going to unload their shadiest assets first. It's also important to note that these low quality mortgages tend to be concentrated in areas with the worst real estate bubbles so when prices start falling they'll have higher than average default rates. The default rate will be more like Florida, Nevada and Arizona than Wyoming, meaning a loss of 30-50% on the value of the mortgage pools.

Now we get to the fun part. Remember what I said a few paragraphs earlier about NHA loans? The National Housing Act states that if your mortgage doesn't meet the conditions of a prime loan, you are required to pay an additional fee to the CHMC which then insures your loan for the bank. As a result the CHMC has an $8 billion slush fund to insure around $500 billion worth of mortgages plus whatever percentage of the $300 billion in MBSs on the market that they own, once that fund is gone the banks are out of luck and will have to eat their own losses. This keeps the banks fairly honest, they can't load up on subprime loans or they'll bankrupt the CHMC and put themselves out of business.

This is no longer true, the banks can now originate mortgages & MBSs which are total write-offs and offload them to the government via the CHMC, and get paid full value for them with no risk. The banks get free money and the government gets a bag of dogshit loans & papers.

To summarize; take the $75 billion, zero out the MBS portion then knock 30-50% off what remains. It's not a 100% loss but my rough guess is it'll be at least a 60-70% loss. My wife could give you a more precise figure since she works for one of the banks but I'm not sure if she's allowed to spill the beans.

[Magis]

The mortgage pools themselves won't retain 100% of their value, historically, Canada has seen 30-40% drops in housing prices after bubbles (see early 90's). Back then nearly all mortgages were 20% downpayment, 30% debt to income ratio loans which have a default rate of well under 1% under all but the worst recessions or depressions. This is no longer true, we now have many mortgages floating around with under 5% downpayment and some of them are even interest only or neg-am loans, in other words, these are all subprime and Alt-A loans.

[snip]

To summarize; take the $75 billion, zero out the MBS portion then knock 30-50% off what remains. It's not a 100% loss but my rough guess is it'll be at least a 60-70% loss. My wife could give you a more precise figure since she works for one of the banks but I'm not sure if she's allowed to spill the beans.

A decrease in housing prices does not decrease the value of mortgage-backed securities. What affects the value of mortgage-backed securities is the flow of payments from the mortgagee. And, as we've both already mentioned, the mortgages in question are already insured by a Crown Corporation, meaning that that the feds were already on the hook for these mortgages in the case of default. In any case, you haven't provided any evidence that the Government has lost money on those market transactions, and quoting a general decrease in housing prices in the 1990s certainly doesn't cut it, especially since housing prices don't directly affect the value of these securities.