An Explanation of Non-Confidence Votes
Since the last federal election in October 2019 I have been getting a steady stream of e-mails, letters and social media messages asking why we could not remove the Liberal government from power, sometimes even demanding a non-confidence vote. Moreover, I have constituents who believe that if the opposition parties, especially the conservatives, do not hold a non-confidence vote, it means they are just talking, paying lip service or some other variation of ineffective representation.
Truth is, we’ve had at least 7 non-confidence votes thus far and we have lost them all. What counts as a question of confidence in the government varies with the circumstances; there is no hard and fast rule. If you look on the parliamentary website, you will quickly see that nowhere is this explained or cited to indicate which motions and bills were matters of confidence. Confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor is it something on which the Speaker can make a ruling. It is a convention, an unwritten rule that we apply by tradition.
When a government loses a vote of confidence it would then resign. The Governor General could then either call an election or allow another parliamentarian to try and form a government. This would typically come from the recognized party in Parliament with the most seats, but a coalition of opposition parties could also form a government with the approval of the Governor General. Following the formation of a new government, MPs would vote to establish the confidence of the new government.
A vote of non-confidence is explicitly not like an impeachment in the United States of America. Impeachment can be used by Congress to remove any federal official, not just presidents, through a double vote through the House of Representatives then the Senate. The House of Representatives lays the charges, and the Senate holds a trial based on laid charges. Following a trial, the Senate votes to convict the elected official; conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. Non-confidence is expressed in a government, not a person. Our parliamentary system removes the entire government and causes an election; those advocating for a successful non-confidence vote are advocating for an immediate federal election.
Non-confidence votes can be explicitly written and voted upon. For example, on February 18, 2020, the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Scheer, tabled one that simply reads, "that the House has lost confidence in the government." It is clear and easy to understand. We have not yet brought it forward for debate and a vote. If Parliament continues to be effectively shutdown from the COVID-19 pandemic, we would not be able to do so even if we wished.
At the writing of this explanation, the Liberals had 40% approval in public polls, no doubt benefiting from the rally to the flag effect during a national emergency. Provincial leaders, American politicians, and European governing parties have all seen this effect. The Bloc and the NDP also announced their on-going support for the federal Liberal government. The Bloc has made their support explicit only on matters of confidence and supply, the latter meaning money bills when spending is done. Holding a vote you are certain to lose may relieve a person’s anger and frustration, but it does not move public opinion or convince a majority of voters to switch their future votes.
We can also debate the merits of having a federal election during a viral pandemic or during the economic recovery. I see no appetite whatsoever from the general public and from residents in Calgary Shepard in having another federal election within a year of the last one. Add into this calculation that nearly all federal political parties and their local electoral associations are low on money with donations being anemic, and I would hope people would see that it is illogical to call a confidence vote when unprepared.
To make my point and demonstrate how non-confidence votes work in practice, I am going to describe what happened when Paul Martin's minority Liberal government was nearly toppled by a non-confidence matter in 2005, and in 2011 when the minority Stephen Harper government fell on a non-confidence motion.
In 2005, a parliamentary committee’s report calling on the Liberal minority Martin government to resign was voted on with 153 for and 150 against on March 13th. The report explicitly called on the Liberal government to resign and when it did not, it caused a week of procedural delaying tactics by the opposition parties working together. Two days prior, then Prime Minister Martin said in question period the upcoming budget vote on May 19th would be a matter of confidence. On May 19th, the 152-152 tie vote forced the Speaker to vote and he did so, as tradition required, to pass the budget and continue debate on government legislation.
Later that same year, the conservative opposition moved a motion that said the government had lost the confidence of Parliament. During the debate, parliamentarians on all sides said the vote would be a matter of confidence. On November 29, 2005, the Liberal government of prime minister Paul Martin lost the vote, resulting in an election.
In March 2011, it was then prime minister Stephen Harper who faced an opposition motion from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff that explicitly said the vote was going to be a matter of confidence. Once the debate was finished, the minority conservative government lost the vote and an election was called.
What next?
If not a confidence vote, then what? Since a confidence vote is not like American impeachment, the question is what can you do if you believe (as I do) that the Liberal government continues to fail to deliver results and does not meet expectations of a responsible government? I am a conservative MP so my advice is to get involved with your local conservative association, volunteer your time to make change happen, and if you have the means, donate generously. Every dollar donated is used towards winning a riding and helps MPs spend more time convincing undecided voters and to appeal to reason with the accessible voter. It took 15 years between when the long-gun registry was introduced into law by the Chretien Liberal government and when the Harper minority conservative government passed legislation to abolish it. It took 2 years between when the Gomery Commission was called to investigate the depths of the Liberal sponsorship scandal and the passage under the conservative government of Stephen Harper with Bill 1 the Federal Accountability Act in response.
Calling for a confidence vote today is not constructive. We will lose the vote, and we won't achieve our goals. Changing policy, legislation and ideas is about convincing fellow Canadians before the next election to vote for a conservative MP in their area. That’s done by volunteering, organizing petitions, drafting proposed legislation, and donating to local electoral associations.