Your Questions: Ask CBC

The problem I am many Canadians are having with out current government is everything is a confidence vote.

It makes me wonder if the government has any confidence in it's own self.

I believe it is rare for the government to go to the Governor General to ask for them to dissolve Parliment.

How many times has this happened and what does it mean to the average Canadian in terms of confidence in our political leaders?

Chris Hall: Hi Charlene, actually, the prime minister always goes to see the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, even if he (or she!) leads a majority government.

As to your specific observations, I can assure you that this government is brimming with confidence, so much so that the prime minister and his advisers are risking an election now by declaring all these measures before Parliament as matters of confidence.

One political science prof told us he's never seen a government trying so hard to move votes of non-confidence in itself!

Five minority governments have been defeated on straight confidence votes. The most recent case was in 2004 when the combined opposition voted non-confidence in the government of Paul Martin.

Why does the Federal goverment still discriminate against women when it comes to receiving EI benefits and doesn't EI have a $5 billion dollar surplus?

Chris Hall: Annette, I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by discrimination.

My guess is that you are referring to long-standing complaints that women have less access to Employment Insurance benefits because they balance work with raising children.

Statistics show that women are more likely to work part-time than men, and therefore receive lower benefits for shorter periods of time.

The answer to these concerns is that EI is supposed to be an insurance plan.. and benefits are determined by hours of work.

Is that fair? Many economists and social policy experts say no. But government have yet to change the eligibility criteria.

As for the EI surplus. You forgot a digit. The surplus in the fund has now reached $51 billion — and it's still growing because the government still collects far more in premiums than it pays out in benefits.

Is the Harper minority government's flagrant use of confidence votes a dangerous precedent for future generations of Canadians, or is this just one more incremental step to making re-making Canada in Harper's image?

Chris Hall: Interesting question.

I don't know about the dangerous part, but it's a precedent in part fuelled by the prime minister's insistence last fall that adoption of the speech from the throne implied confidence in every measure it contained.

The counter, of course, is that the opposition now has the power to defeat the government anytime it declares one of its initiatives a matter of confidence.

There are many things in life I don’t understand, for example military intelligence - an oxymoron I am told.

The Manley panel consisted of a few former MPs’ and civil servants who, over a three month period, looked at the war in Afghanistan and concluded Canada needs a thousand more troops and a few helicopters to ensure the mission is successful.

My question is where was the military brass was over the past few years?

The Panel's findings are so obvious, why didn’t Rick Hillier or the other highly paid military staff think of this sooner?

Chris Hall: Thanks Gordon.

I'm not sure General Rick Hillier and his staff didn't think of these things. They probably did. And, knowing the general, he would have shared his views when asked.

But the point of the Manley Panel was not only in suggesting an appropriate role for Canadian efforts in Afghanistan after February, 2009. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was trying to obtain what he called a ''bipartisan'' solution going forward.

As we all know, John Manley was a former Liberal deputy prime minister. We also know that he was, let's call it hawkish, in his views.

The Liberal government he was part of sent Canadian troops to Kandahar in the first place. Most observers believe both were key factors in the prime minister's decision to have Manley chair the group.

Canada's role in Afghanistan remains a serious political issue. An issue that exposes differences in foreign and military policies for each of the four main parties.

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois insist Canadian troops must be withdrawn by this time next year.

The Conservatives and Liberals believe they should stay. They just don't agree on whether the mission should include combat.

No matter what people may think of the panel's recommendations, or Harper's choice of panel members, the report provides a reference point for the political leaders to make their decision as well as for the efforts now underway to find a compromise.

Knowing full well that drug prices in this country are priced many 100s of % above producton costs, will the next government
(1)Have a full inquiry.
(2)Bring in price controls.
(3)Nationalize the pharmaceutical co.

Chris Hall: Well Bert. I don't know what the next government will do because I don't know who it will be.

But this government has not included drug prices among its health-care priorities.

No one who covers Parliament Hill ever rules out the possibility of a public inquiry.

The NDP has proposed tighter restrictions on patent legislation to prevent drug companies from ''evergreening'' drugs, which means making small changes that allow them to apply for a new patent and thus put off the delivery of less expensive generic drugs.

The New Democrats and Liberals have also proposed national pharmaceutical plans that would begin by covering the cost of the most expensive, so-called ''catastrophic'' drugs.

I'm not aware of any plans to nationalize the industry.

When the government proposes a confidence motion, as they have in the case of the Afghanistan mission, are all motions to amend the original confidence issue also confidence motions?

In other words, can the Government fall if all the opposition group together and amend the original motion to their liking? Assuming the amended motion goes through, would it be taken as a vote of confidence? Or can the government pick-and-choose the amendments as "Friendly" and "unfriendly" amendments.

Where are all the rules of this nature set out in writing?

Chris Hall: Yikes! Scott, your questions had me diving for my copy of Marleau and Montpetit, the bible of rules and procedures in the House of Commons.

The short answer is that the government can declare any motion a matter of confidence, which means it would be defeated if the motion is rejected by the combined numbers of the opposition parties.

By extension, the government also has the power to declare any change to its confidence motion as a matter of confidence.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already declared that a vote on the Afghanistan mission will be a confidence vote, whether it's put forward by his government or the opposition.

It's all set out in the book I referred to above House of Commons Procedure and Practice, edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit.

Thanks for your questions.