Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The 116 to 91 figure is from the election AFTER the King-Byng affair. In the interim, the Conservatives (under Meighen) were invited by the G-G (Byng) to form a government against the wishes of the PM (King) who wanted Parliament dissolved before he faced a motion of no confidence.

He'd faced and lost the motion.

He wanted an election.

The controversy was that the GG gave Meighen a chance to govern.

[notyoueither]

In fact, he moved confidence on himself in response to a committee motion. He lost.

This was the basis of my criticism of Martin's shenanigans. Martin ignored everything that should have brought him to judgement.

[KrazyHorse]

He'd faced and lost the motion.

As far as I know this is not true. He had lost several votes, none of which were confidence motions. He then presented Byng with an Order-In-Council requesting the dissolution of Parliament. This is not the same as a motion of no confidence AFAIK.

I'm fuzzy on this point, but I'm under the impression that a motion of no confidence is PRECISELY what would give the G-G the right to appoint a new PM, whereas an order in council dissolving parliament would not (it would send the issue back to the electorate).

The controversy is that Byng REFUSED TO SIGN the order in council. Not that the G-G allowed Meighen to attempt to form a government.

[KrazyHorse]

When Meighen's government failed to win its first confidence vote, both realistic possibilities for a PM had been tried and Byng dissolved Parliament.

[CrONoS]

There is something that I don't understand: There is clearly no clear rules about how the G-G should act if a confidence vote passed. Probably the government would dissolve the parliament and we would go into election.

If the G-G could appoint Dion, as the chief of government, where that's power come from, from the power of the Queen?

Since if there was a law or something into the constitution or convention, Dion would be able to go directly at the supreme court...?

[KrazyHorse]

where that's power come from, from the power of the Queen?

Yes. It is one of the governor general's "reserve powers".

[KrazyHorse]

There are only two possible responses to the government's failure to retain the confidence of the commons:

1) Resign and allow the G-G to appoint a new PM
2) Request a dissolution of Parliament

Now, the Conservatives will not do (1) if it comes down to that. They will therefore request a dissolution of Parliament. The G-G holds the power to refuse this motion, if he believes that there is another viable candidate for PM. In this case, Dion is securing the support of the Bloc and the NDP in writing, which would give him a working majority in Commons. There is no law forcing the G-G to allow OR deny the Conservatives' (hypothetical) request to dissolve Parliament. However, the precedent APPEARS to be (based on the very few times it's happened) that when there is a viable alternate candidate the G-G (or L-G in the case of the provinces) does not dissolve Parliament and instead does give the other candidate a chance.

[notyoueither]

I think Cronos is wondering if we are beholden to a Queen.

The short answer is no.

The GG is appointed by the PM and relies on the advice of PMs. He or she is advised by scholars on which way to move when the wind blows.

If we did not have an appointed GG, we would have to elect a replacement for the function. Believe me, that would get a whole lot messier, as some fool who won an election would entertain delusions of granduer and want a larger role, no doubt thinking that would be more befitting his or her importance.

[KrazyHorse]

There is very little, or no, precedent for the GG to grant the opposition their proposed desire

There is, AFAIK, absolutely NO precedent to point to in which the G-G refuses to give a viable candidate a shot at governing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The GG is appointed by the PM and relies on the advice of PMs.

I would like to know where you're getting this. He relies on the advice of the PM as well as the advice of other prominent politicians. The PM does not dictate to the G-G.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

There is very little, or no, precedent for the GG to grant the opposition their proposed desire

There is, AFAIK, absolutely NO precedent to point to in which the G-G refuses to give a viable candidate a shot at governing.

How many cases are there of parties with less then half the seats of the governing party being given a chance at government after a motion of non-confidence?

Can you say 'zero'?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I would like to know where you're getting this. He relies on the advice of the PM as well as the advice of other prominent politicians. The PM does not dictate to the G-G.

The PM is the point of contact for the monarch, or GG.

The GG does not invite the opposition leaders over for tea. She may read a letter they write to her, or maybe not.

You do not seem to have a grasp of how aloof they hold themselves from the political fray. The last thing in the world the GG needs is to be seen to be discussing politics with politicians.

The monarch will not visit the country if there is an election underway. Does that give you a clue?

[KrazyHorse]

How many cases are there of parties with less then half the seats of the governing party being given a chance at government after a motion of non-confidence?

As I said, we have very few precedents. But those we have APPEAR to point in the direction of allowing the Commons to sort things out for itself until this becomes impossible. The King/Byng affair and the Liberal/NDP government in Ontario are the only precedents which are even close, and they both point toward an aversion of calling another election when it is not absolutely necessary.

The elections were held a month and a half ago. I would say that it is MORE constitutionally radical to dissolve Parliament in this case than it is to allow the 2nd party (which has the WRITTEN support of parties representing a majority of Commons) to attempt to form a government.

[notyoueither]

The Tories in the King-Byng affair were the largest party in the Commons, and had garnered the most votes.

Peterson was invited by his opponent to try to govern.

There is no precedent for the lame-brained coalition being proposed by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The GG does not invite the opposition leaders over for tea. She may read a letter they write to her, or maybe not.

In a case where what they have to say has a direct impact on how she should proceed, she will.

The G-G is about to be forced into a decision. Whether she grants Harpers (hypothetical) request to dissolve Parliament or the opposition's request to form a government it will be a precedent.

There is NO precedent for dissolving Parliament in such a situation. There are a couple of precedents which point the other way (though they are not quite exactly on point).