Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau, and SNC-Lavalin

427 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

JKR wrote:

Do you think the GG would replace Trudeau  without Trudeau resigning first?!?!?!?

No of course not. As of now Trudeau does have the confidence of the house. As long as he has it he is PM. 

The person who has the confidence of the house becomes PM regardless of what party they belong to even if they don't belong to any party. 

Technically Canadians do not elect a PM or a party. We elect representatives. Any MP who believes they have the confidence of the house (and can make a reasonable argument that they have it) can approach the GG and ask for the opportunity to form government. The individual give a throne speech. If they have the confidence of the house they become PM. If they don't the GG has to evaluate if anyone else might win the confidence of the house and will ask them if there is. If not another election has to be called. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

So the options are: 

1) Trudeau goes to the GG and submits his resignation.  Assuming clear support for a new leader (who is the deputy leader?) the GG will pass the torch.  If the Liberal party is divided and it is this late in the mandate, the GG will call an election.

2) The Liberal Party chooses a new leader, even just an interim one.  Trudeau would have to resign.  In the bizarro world that he tried to hold onto power he would not last past the first procedural motion in the house.

3) Trudeau holds onto a majority of the Liberal Party but cannot command the confidence of the house.  It would be a dramatic no confidence situation where Liberal Party members joined opposition members to bring down a government (Labour just tried this and failed in England).

4) Trudeau limps along with minimal support.  See England...

blairz blairz's picture

Anyone Watching the Climate Change(Campaign Rally) Trudeau is being heckled. Hecklers being heckled, it's a real circus.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Do you think the GG would replace Trudeau  without Trudeau resigning first?!?!?!?

No of course not. As of now Trudeau does have the confidence of the house. As long as he has it he is PM. 

The person who has the confidence of the house becomes PM regardless of what party they belong to even if they don't belong to any party. 

Technically Canadians do not elect a PM or a party. We elect representatives. Any MP who believes they have the confidence of the house (and can make a reasonable argument that they have it) can approach the GG and ask for the opportunity to form government. The individual give a throne speech. If they have the confidence of the house they become PM. If they don't the GG has to evaluate if anyone else might win the confidence of the house and will ask them if there is. If not another election has to be called. 

Do you think the GG would receive someone who says they have the confidence of the House before Trudeau resigned?!?!?!?

Unionist

Pondering said the House elects the PM.

When that nonsensical invention was exposed, she started re-arranging the deck chairs.

What's wrong with saying (for once in your life): "I was wrong, thanks for clarifying, I'll do some more reading now?" Or phrase it any way you want.

What a tiresome exercise.

Pogo Pogo's picture

JKR wrote:
Do you think the GG would receive someone who says they have the confidence of the House before Trudeau resigned?!?!?!?

The only scenario I can come up with is if a coalition of opposition and Liberal defectors approached the GG.  On top of demonstrating the ability to retain confidence (a coalition agreement) this group would have to show why a new election is not the choice (at this point it would take some sort of national emergency). 

 

quizzical

i'd like to know why some think JWR should've resigned as AG if she was under pressure?

quizzical

i'd like to know why some think JWR should've resigned as AG if she was under pressure?

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you think the GG would receive someone who says they have the confidence of the House before Trudeau resigned?!?!?!?

The only scenario I can come up with is if a coalition of opposition and Liberal defectors approached the GG.  On top of demonstrating the ability to retain confidence (a coalition agreement) this group would have to show why a new election is not the choice (at this point it would take some sort of national emergency). 

 

Ya the GG getting involved in this at this point is way way out there speculation. With the general election only 7 months away, the logical route would be to let the brain washed voters decide. After all, they've been doing a fine job so far rolling the dice.

Misfit Misfit's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Pogo wrote:

JKR wrote:
Do you think the GG would receive someone who says they have the confidence of the House before Trudeau resigned?!?!?!?

The only scenario I can come up with is if a coalition of opposition and Liberal defectors approached the GG.  On top of demonstrating the ability to retain confidence (a coalition agreement) this group would have to show why a new election is not the choice (at this point it would take some sort of national emergency). 

 

Ya the GG getting involved in this at this point is way way out there speculation. With the general election only 7 months away, the logical route would be to let the brain washed voters decide. After all, they've been doing a fine job so far rolling the dice.

You mean flipping the coin. Heads, Liberals win. tails, Conservatives win.

Unionist

What will Gerry Butts say tomorrow? Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs!

cco

Put me down for a Wernick: Something he thinks exonerates Trudeau completely, but actually makes him look worse.

Badriya

quizzical wrote:

i'd like to know why some think JWR should've resigned as AG if she was under pressure?

The Shawcross doctrine, named for a British attorney general in the 1940s and 1950s, has been accepted in federal and provincial jurisdictions across Canada.  According to Craig Forcese, law professor at U Ottawa,  “From these standards, it is clear political advice is one thing, but a political executive “direction” to the AG in a criminal justice matter would exceed the Shawcross standard. In response to such a direction, the AG should refuse – and resign.”

I don’t agree, and think JWR did the right thing by not resigning.

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/public_law_blog/2019/2/9/laffaire-snc-lavalin-the-public-law-principles.html

Noops

Unionist wrote:

What will Gerry Butts say tomorrow? Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs!

Probably counter everything JWR testified about.
I wonder if JWR recorded all of her conversations?  :)

voice of the damned

cco wrote:
Put me down for a Wernick: Something he thinks exonerates Trudeau completely, but actually makes him look worse.

I'm still debating how much I should hold it against Wernick that he used the pseudo-intellectual definition of "vomitorium" in his rant.

I mean, I don't exactly recall when I learned that the thing about Roman puking-rooms was fake(might have been as late as my forties), and as far as I can tell, Wernick didn't explicitly come out and say "People need to have more respect for the elites because we know what's best", but still. His overtone of affronted gentility("...honourable people dragged through the market square"), doesn't leave much room for charity when he lapses into urban-legends.

NDPP

He's another one that should be resigning

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering said the House elects the PM.

When that nonsensical invention was exposed, she started re-arranging the deck chairs.

What's wrong with saying (for once in your life): "I was wrong, thanks for clarifying, I'll do some more reading now?" Or phrase it any way you want.

What a tiresome exercise.

Talk about petty. I used the word "elect" incorrectly. It is still the house that has power over who becomes or remains PM. You must know that there is something called a "confidence" vote which traditionally includes the speech from the throne and budget bills. 

In a majority government the house voting against the budget or throne speech is rare to non-existent but minority governments often lose the confidence of the house when presenting a budget bill. The PM can also declare votes a matter of confidence on other issues which is something Harper did. He knew the other parties weren't ready for an election so he would make bill a confidence vote to force cooperation from the Liberals. 

We currently have a PM with the confidence of the house. If they wanted to Liberals could vote against Trudeau's next budget bill. If that were to happen now we are so close to an election that the GG would probably invoke an election rather than looking to see if anyone else had the confidence of the house. If it were Trudeau's first budget bill and it was voted down she would probably give another MP the opportunity to argue that they have the confidence of the house. If that other MP, probably a Liberal, and could convince the GG they had the support of a majority of the house the GG could appoint them PM at which point they would have to give a throne speech to prove they had the confidence of the house. 

The reason Dion and Layton could have formed government is because Harper was about to lose the confidence of the house had the Liberals remained onboard. 

The house of commons may not "elect" the PM but the PM cannot remain PM without the confidence of the house. The GG does not override the decision of the HoC. Not even at the first throne speech. As the Queen's representative the GG appoints the person they believe has the confidence of the house. No confidence of the house, no PM. If the HoC cannot come to agreement on a leader no government can be formed and another election must be called. 

You can argue semantics and the formal role of the GG but it remains true that the PM serves at the pleasure of the HoC. Conventionally that person is the leader of the party with the most votes but that is a convention not a law or a rule. Although it is provincial BC is the perfect example. Just because the Liberals had the most votes did not mean that the house had to accept Clark as leader. 

Pondering

Here is my original comment which sparked the "debate".  You will notice I put "elect" in quotes. Semantically that is usually interpreted as not meaning that word literally.

Pondering wrote:

Yup. This is amazing. The situation just went critical. In my opinion this is about more than just SNC-Lavelin. That they are both leaving cabinet but remaining in caucus makes me wonder if there is a coup in the offing. As I understand our system, The House of Commons "elects" the PM. That is, if Trudeau loses the confidence of the house the house can choose someone else to support even if Trudeau remains the leader of the party.

I know, unlikely, but oh my it would be exciting. 

So, Unionist, you are the one "rearranging" the deck chairs and putting words in my mouth. You too JKR. You may want to note I used the word unlikely

I'd love to know who it is you think has the power to impose a PM on the house. 

cco

voice of the damned wrote:

cco wrote:
Put me down for a Wernick: Something he thinks exonerates Trudeau completely, but actually makes him look worse.

I'm still debating how much I should hold it against Wernick that he used the pseudo-intellectual definition of "vomitorium" in his rant.

I mean, I don't exactly recall when I learned that the thing about Roman puking-rooms was fake(might have been as late as my forties), and as far as I can tell, Wernick didn't explicitly come out and say "People need to have more respect for the elites because we know what's best", but still. His overtone of affronted gentility("...honourable people dragged through the market square"), doesn't leave much room for charity when he lapses into urban-legends.


I like the way you phrased it ("affronted gentility"). Remember, folks, criticizing Liberals is criticizing Canada! That's the kind of thing that leads to assassinations! (Nevermind that the actual last attempted assassination in Canadian politics was by a Liberal donor against someone from a party the Liberals have criticized plenty.)

As for "vomitorium", I was lucky enough to learn the real definition first, in middle school, while reading an old sci-fi short story by E.M. Forster, so by the time I heard the urban legend, it didn't stick for me.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Noops wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What will Gerry Butts say tomorrow? Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs!

Probably counter everything JWR testified about.
I wonder if JWR recorded all of her conversations?  :)

She referenced her notes and her staff's notes that were made either at the time or immediately afterwords in de-briefings. She also referenced specific e-mails. I doubt if she has tapes of the phone conversations. For the purposes of this investigation the Justice Committee should see whether it can get its partners in 5Eyes to release them.

Martin N.

Unionist wrote:

Pondering said the House elects the PM.

When that nonsensical invention was exposed, she started re-arranging the deck chairs.

What's wrong with saying (for once in your life): "I was wrong, thanks for clarifying, I'll do some more reading now?" Or phrase it any way you want.

What a tiresome exercise.

I understood what she meant. It's a discussion board, not the Supreme Court, get over yourself and stop acting the prat.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering said the House elects the PM.

When that nonsensical invention was exposed, she started re-arranging the deck chairs.

What's wrong with saying (for once in your life): "I was wrong, thanks for clarifying, I'll do some more reading now?" Or phrase it any way you want.

What a tiresome exercise.

I understood what she meant. It's a discussion board, not the Supreme Court, get over yourself and stop acting the prat.

Given she believes that politics should be the practice of preaching banalities to the uninformed voter I find her insistence on proving that she herself is a low information voter rather endearing.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

So, Unionist, you are the one "rearranging" the deck chairs and putting words in my mouth. You too JKR.

What words did I put in your mouth?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Given she believes that politics should be the practice of preaching banalities to the uninformed voter I find her insistence on proving that she herself is a low information voter rather endearing.

No, I promote telling the truth about what the majority of people care most about in plain language to people who have busy lives and are not political junkies. Everyone here constantly derides the MSM but then you think people should be reading every word that drops from pundits mouths and the political news of the day. 

There are months I pay no attention to the news because it is too damn depressing and there is nothing I can do about most of it. I don't need to know what is going on with JWR and Philpott. When Oct. rolls around I already know who I am voting for. Even if I didn't all I need to do is compare the platforms and watch the news for the controversies. 

We on this board dissect the news and the people involved because we like discussing or debating current events. It doesn't make us smarter or better people it just means we know abit more about politics. Upcoming protests aren't even mentioned here. We are sooooo activist. I know some people are actively activist off the boards but even then it has nothing to do with our presence on this board. 

You acknowledge that there is not much to choose from between the parties, even the NDP, they are all neoliberal. The NDP did not fight against the trade deals other than some muted criticism now and again. 

I'm happy you find me endearing but I find you snobbish, so sorry about that. 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I'd love to know who it is you think has the power to impose a PM on the house. 

Legally? Her Majesty in right of Canada, as represented by her Governor-General. That's who has the power. Surprised you didn't know that.

In practice? The same. Michaelle Jean, eager to hang on to her position or whatever her selfish motivation was, dissolved Parliament rather than appoint Stéphane Dion as PM, even though she was presented with unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House. She simply sabotaged the House's ability to proceed to that vote. Yes, the G-G has a whole lot of theoretical and practical power.

Why? You still think the House "elects" the PM? With or without quotation marks?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'd love to know who it is you think has the power to impose a PM on the house. 

Legally? Her Majesty in right of Canada, as represented by her Governor-General. That's who has the power. Surprised you didn't know that.

In practice? The same. Michaelle Jean, eager to hang on to her position or whatever her selfish motivation was, dissolved Parliament rather than appoint Stéphane Dion as PM, even though she was presented with unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House. She simply sabotaged the House's ability to proceed to that vote. Yes, the G-G has a whole lot of theoretical and practical power.

Why? You still think the House "elects" the PM? With or without quotation marks?

You need to read up because the house has the power to reject anyone appointed by the GG.  The Queen doesn't get to pick the PM in England either. Both in practice and in law a PM who does not have the confidence of the house cannot form a government. 

The prime minister, along with the other ministers in cabinet, is appointed by the governor general on behalf of the monarch.[7] However, by the conventions of responsible government, designed to maintain administrative stability, the governor general will call to form a government the individual most likely to receive the support, or confidence, of a majority of the directly elected members of the House of Commons;[8] as a practical matter, this is often the leader of a party whose members form a majority, or a very large plurality, of Members of Parliament (MPs).[9]

The GG allowed, after long discussion, Harper to prorogue the government over the holidays. He used that to delay the confidence vote but he still had to face it. By then the Liberals had deposed Dion and put Ignatieff in his place. 

Had that not occurred and Harper had lost the confidence of the house no amount of insisting by the GG could have resulted in Harper remaining PM after losing a confidence vote. Dion would then have approach the GG and stated that he had the confidence of the house. 

The GG's role in selecting the PM is ceremonial. The house decides who the PM is even if it is not in the form of an election. The GG allowed Harper to temporarily prorogue parliament because to do otherwise would have been interference. The Queen and her representatives make every effort to stay out of politics for the survival of the throne. 

You are playing semantics. You are insisting on a stupid interpretation of my words to defend your silliness. You are the one who won't admit it when you in the wrong. 

We do live in a democracy in which the Crown does not get to choose the head of government.  Neither do the people get to choose. We elect our local representative not the PM. As a legal formality the GG will appoint the individual with the confidence of the house even if the GG hates that person's guts and thinks they are the worst choice in the world. The one thing a PM must have to become or remain the PM is the confidence of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. 

You can dance around the details, rearrange the chairs on the Titanic, and that will still remain the truth of our system of government. 

JKR

Recently in BC the Lieutenant Governor of BC appointed John Horgan Premier of the province before he gained the confidence of the BC Legislature.

Unionist

Pondering appears to believe that loquacity can prevail over law and convention. There's no such thing as a PM needing or obtaining the confidence of the House. PMs are not chosen, or confirmed, or defeated by the House. Neither by law, nor by convention.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So, Unionist, you are the one "rearranging" the deck chairs and putting words in my mouth. You too JKR.

What words did I put in your mouth?

The exchange below. 

Pondering wrote:

As I understand our system, any MP that has the confidence of the house can approach the GG and offer themselves as PM. That is usually the leader of the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. 

JKR wrote:

I think Trudeau has to offer his resignation to the GG or lose a vote of confidence in the House before the GG can appoint another PM.

No kidding Sherlock. In no way did I infer or suggest that any MP can just waltz into the GG's office and demand a chance to become PM while there is still a sitting PM that hasn't lost a vote of confidence. The only argument I have made, which Martin was able to comprehend, is that the PM serves at the pleasure of the HoC not the GG, even if the GG makes the formal appointment. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/03/05/jane-philpott-cabinet-nathaniel...

The two Liberal backbenchers who broke ranks to support an NDP motion for a public inquiry into the SNC-Lavalin affair are suggesting a full hearing into the matter is needed now more than ever.

Nearly two weeks ago, Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and New Brunswick's Wayne Long voted with New Democrats and Conservatives in favour of an inquiry. The motion was easily defeated by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons.

Trudeau maintains power only so long as the majority of MPs in the house support him. All it would take is 16 Liberal MPs out of 184 to withdraw their support (more or less). There are already 4 that aren't happy. An insurrection is unlikely but it is possible. Trudeau won in 2015 with many new MPs for which it is their first time in government. The Liberals picked up 148 seats. Those MPs are not as strongly indoctrinated as MPs who are on their second or third term.

This story is far from over. I think an insurrection is unlikely but I do have a sense that the other shoe is about to drop. Depending on what comes out in the next couple of weeks/months things could get a lot more dramatic. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So, Unionist, you are the one "rearranging" the deck chairs and putting words in my mouth. You too JKR.

What words did I put in your mouth?

The exchange below. 

Pondering wrote:

As I understand our system, any MP that has the confidence of the house can approach the GG and offer themselves as PM. That is usually the leader of the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. 

JKR wrote:

I think Trudeau has to offer his resignation to the GG or lose a vote of confidence in the House before the GG can appoint another PM.

No kidding Sherlock. In no way did I infer or suggest that any MP can just waltz into the GG's office and demand a chance to become PM while there is still a sitting PM that hasn't lost a vote of confidence. The only argument I have made, which Martin was able to comprehend, is that the PM serves at the pleasure of the HoC not the GG, even if the GG makes the formal appointment. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/03/05/jane-philpott-cabinet-nathaniel...

The two Liberal backbenchers who broke ranks to support an NDP motion for a public inquiry into the SNC-Lavalin affair are suggesting a full hearing into the matter is needed now more than ever.

Nearly two weeks ago, Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and New Brunswick's Wayne Long voted with New Democrats and Conservatives in favour of an inquiry. The motion was easily defeated by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons.

Trudeau maintains power only so long as the majority of MPs in the house support him. All it would take is 16 Liberal MPs out of 184 to withdraw their support (more or less). There are already 4 that aren't happy. An insurrection is unlikely but it is possible. Trudeau won in 2015 with many new MPs for which it is their first time in government. The Liberals picked up 148 seats. Those MPs are not as strongly indoctrinated as MPs who are on their second or third term.

This story is far from over. I think an insurrection is unlikely but I do have a sense that the other shoe is about to drop. Depending on what comes out in the next couple of weeks/months things could get a lot more dramatic. 

There is absolutely no mechanism for this. The only tool regarding confidence is a non-confidence vote and such a vote is confidence in the government. If it were to fall there would be an election. Trudeau would be expected to run and there is nothing stopping him from doing so. There is no mechanism or choice for the HofC to choose a PM or any other party leader. They only support a proposed government or reject supporting one.

The process whereby a GG can select alternate parties to form a government is when an election is recent. In that case the GG would listen to other party leaders after having provided an option for the outgoing government to show it could still get confidence. A person who has not been endorsed by a party cannot offer a stable government which is the only job a PM has and there is no mechanism for such a person to approach the GG or to test confidence -- they do not control a party. No party woudl permit a rebel of that party to represent it in a negotiation with the GG. Naturally if a party wanted someone else to approach the GG for this purpose they would give them authority as leader. They could not do so without the previous leader being deposed or resigning.

In theory of course Elizabeth May in a minority could for example speak to Liberals and New Democrats and propose that she put her name forward as a compromise if a larger party could not get confidence with their own leader. This would be a last gasp chance prior to letting the Conservative try. The GG could refuse saying it is too unstable and call an election. This would be hard to do if an election had just been held. But no party is going to ever offer up nonleaders as options -- if they wanted that person to be the leader they would have them act in that role.

Canada does not have any seperate mechanism to choose or depose party leaders by caucus. (The caucus can do this in Australia or the UK but not here.)

No system in the world (that I know of) gives any role to opposition members to select a leader from a governing caucus. You can see the conflict of interest there.

The thing you may be confusing this with is the process of getting confidence in the first place. On election night if the result is clear the other parties concede defeat allowing the GG to call on the victorious one. The convention of concession is all about this. When a leader does not concede, and if that person represents the party that last held confidence before the election that person has the option of meeting the House first. If they do not obtain confidence or decline to do so the GG can ask another party's leader to do so.

From the parliamentary website:

"The party with the most number of elected MPs across the country usually forms the Government. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister."

It says usually becuase confidence is not about the biggest party but about the party that is able to get confidence of the house- a majority. Again this is about the party. There is no role whatsoever for people in other parties to participate in the selection of the leader of another party including when that party is striving to obtain confidence of the house to govern. This exception is where a party that may not be the biggest can get the support of a majority of MPs. For example a Conservative might have more difficulty getting confidence than a second place NDP or Liberal party backed by a third place NDP or Liberal that between them can get over 50% of the House- plus speaker.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Pondering appears to believe that loquacity can prevail over law and convention. There's no such thing as a PM needing or obtaining the confidence of the House. PMs are not chosen, or confirmed, or defeated by the House. Neither by law, nor by convention.

It seems to me that Pondering’s statements about how a person obtains “the confidence of the House” to become PM are unclear and confusing. Pondering seems unaware of the GG’s “reserve powers.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So, Unionist, you are the one "rearranging" the deck chairs and putting words in my mouth. You too JKR.

What words did I put in your mouth?

The exchange below. 

Pondering wrote:

As I understand our system, any MP that has the confidence of the house can approach the GG and offer themselves as PM. That is usually the leader of the party with the most seats but it doesn't have to be. 

JKR wrote:

I think Trudeau has to offer his resignation to the GG or lose a vote of confidence in the House before the GG can appoint another PM.

No kidding Sherlock. In no way did I infer or suggest that any MP can just waltz into the GG's office and demand a chance to become PM while there is still a sitting PM that hasn't lost a vote of confidence. The only argument I have made, which Martin was able to comprehend, is that the PM serves at the pleasure of the HoC not the GG, even if the GG makes the formal appointment. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/03/05/jane-philpott-cabinet-nathaniel...

The two Liberal backbenchers who broke ranks to support an NDP motion for a public inquiry into the SNC-Lavalin affair are suggesting a full hearing into the matter is needed now more than ever.

Nearly two weeks ago, Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and New Brunswick's Wayne Long voted with New Democrats and Conservatives in favour of an inquiry. The motion was easily defeated by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons.

Trudeau maintains power only so long as the majority of MPs in the house support him. All it would take is 16 Liberal MPs out of 184 to withdraw their support (more or less). There are already 4 that aren't happy. An insurrection is unlikely but it is possible. Trudeau won in 2015 with many new MPs for which it is their first time in government. The Liberals picked up 148 seats. Those MPs are not as strongly indoctrinated as MPs who are on their second or third term.

This story is far from over. I think an insurrection is unlikely but I do have a sense that the other shoe is about to drop. Depending on what comes out in the next couple of weeks/months things could get a lot more dramatic. 

You seem unaware of the GG’s reserve powers:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

NDPP

No! Please! Anything but THAT!!!

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/110304509508124257

"Senior government official says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is considering a statement of contrition over how officials in his office conducted themselves in their dealings with Jody Wilson-Raybould."

'It's not that 'I'm sorry' doesn't mean anything. It just doesn't mean anything when some people say it...'  -  S Maraboli - 

voice of the damned

cco wrote:

I like the way you phrased it ("affronted gentility"). Remember, folks, criticizing Liberals is criticizing Canada! That's the kind of thing that leads to assassinations! (Nevermind that the actual last attempted assassination in Canadian politics was by a Liberal donor against someone from a party the Liberals have criticized plenty.)

As for "vomitorium", I was lucky enough to learn the real definition first, in middle school, while reading an old sci-fi short story by E.M. Forster, so by the time I heard the urban legend, it didn't stick for me.

Not to mention Denis Lortie, the guy who wanted to kill members of the PQ government in 1984, and managed to take out three civil servants during his aborted attack. Not sure if he was a Liberal per se, but he was definitely a federalist, and commited his crimes at a time when memories of the 1980 referendum rhetoric would have still been fresh in people's minds.  

Back to the folk-etymologies for a sec, my high-school religion teacher told us that "the eye of a needle", as in "It's harder for a rich man etc", actually refers to a narrow gate outside Jerusalem that would have been hard for camels to navigate through. Not sure when I stopped believing that one, though definitely by my thirties, when I met up with some people who knew scripture inside out.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering appears to believe that loquacity can prevail over law and convention. There's no such thing as a PM needing or obtaining the confidence of the House. PMs are not chosen, or confirmed, or defeated by the House. Neither by law, nor by convention.

It seems to me that Pondering’s statements about how a person obtains “the confidence of the House” to become PM are unclear and confusing. Pondering seems unaware of the GG’s “reserve powers.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

Both of you are trying to twist my words to prove yourselves right. It's stupid. No matter the reserve powers of the GG etc. In Canada when the PM loses the confidence of the house (this happens during a confidence vote) an election is called.  Of course there are formalities. duh

The house "elects" means a different thing than the house elects. I obviously wasn't claiming there was an actual election in the HoC. It is only through insisting I was speaking literally you can pretend I'm wrong. 

You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to prove the HoC can't depose a sitting PM when the HoC is the only entity that can do it.

From your link:

There are usually strict constitutional conventions concerning when these powers may be used, and these conventions are enforced by public pressure. Using these powers in contravention of tradition would generally provoke a constitutional crisis.

I am not speaking of technicalities. From a practical perspective a vote of non-confidence in the house ends the PM's ability to remain PM. If the GG tried to remove a sitting PM that has the support of the HoC it would provoke a constitutional crisis. If the GG appoints someone who does not have the confidence of the house they will lose the first confidence vote. 

For example, if, after the 2015 election, the GG had appointed Mulcair as PM he probably would not have passed a confidence vote in the HoC so would never have been acting PM regardless of the powers of the GG. 

Of course Unionist and JKR are both free to argue the GG can pick anyone they want and impose them on the HoC but it's a stupid claim. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

And another thread drills down into crazy. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pogo wrote:

And another thread drills down into crazy. 

Here is a different rabbit hole. When the sheen comes off, things that looked goofy before take on a whole new perspective and come back to bite you in the ass.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering appears to believe that loquacity can prevail over law and convention. There's no such thing as a PM needing or obtaining the confidence of the House. PMs are not chosen, or confirmed, or defeated by the House. Neither by law, nor by convention.

It seems to me that Pondering’s statements about how a person obtains “the confidence of the House” to become PM are unclear and confusing. Pondering seems unaware of the GG’s “reserve powers.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

Both of you are trying to twist my words to prove yourselves right. It's stupid. No matter the reserve powers of the GG etc. In Canada when the PM loses the confidence of the house (this happens during a confidence vote) an election is called.  Of course there are formalities. duh

The house "elects" means a different thing than the house elects. I obviously wasn't claiming there was an actual election in the HoC. It is only through insisting I was speaking literally you can pretend I'm wrong. 

You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to prove the HoC can't depose a sitting PM when the HoC is the only entity that can do it.

From your link:

There are usually strict constitutional conventions concerning when these powers may be used, and these conventions are enforced by public pressure. Using these powers in contravention of tradition would generally provoke a constitutional crisis.

I am not speaking of technicalities. From a practical perspective a vote of non-confidence in the house ends the PM's ability to remain PM. If the GG tried to remove a sitting PM that has the support of the HoC it would provoke a constitutional crisis. If the GG appoints someone who does not have the confidence of the house they will lose the first confidence vote. 

For example, if, after the 2015 election, the GG had appointed Mulcair as PM he probably would not have passed a confidence vote in the HoC so would never have been acting PM regardless of the powers of the GG. 

Of course Unionist and JKR are both free to argue the GG can pick anyone they want and impose them on the HoC but it's a stupid claim. 

I think you’re the one who’s “twisting words,” “twisting themselves into pretzels,” putting words into others mouths, and making a “stupid claim.”

Pondering

JKR wrote:

I think you’re the one who’s “twisting words,” “twisting themselves into pretzels,” putting words into others mouths, and making a “stupid claim.”

Pondering wrote:

I'd love to know who it is you think has the power to impose a PM on the house. 

Unionist wrote:

Legally? Her Majesty in right of Canada, as represented by her Governor-General. That's who has the power. Surprised you didn't know that.

In practice? The same. Michaelle Jean, eager to hang on to her position or whatever her selfish motivation was, dissolved Parliament rather than appoint Stéphane Dion as PM, even though she was presented with unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House. She simply sabotaged the House's ability to proceed to that vote. Yes, the G-G has a whole lot of theoretical and practical power. 

The GG does not in practice or in law have the power to impose a PM on Canada that is rejected by the House of Commons. 

When the GG prorogued parliament at the request of Harper she was not imposing a PM on Canadians. She was giving permission to the Prime Minister of the day to close parliament until after Christmas. While it was an unusual request the GG, bending over backwards not to interfere, granded his request. 

She did not have "unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House". She was approached by Dion and Layton who claimed they had the support of the house. Each individual representative in the house has the right to cast their vote as they please even if the party tries to whip the vote. Representatives serve at the pleasure of the people not the party. The party can eject them from the party but not from the seat. 

Had she not prorogued parliament Harper would still have been PM. She couldn't just appoint Dion as Unionist suggests. The vote would still have come and it is possible the Liberals would still have replaced Dion before the vote. If Harper lost the confidence vote Dion would then have to claim to have the confidence of the house and he would have had to present a throne speech and the house would still have had the final say on whether or not to accept him as PM.

We live in a representative democracy. 

Unionist

JKR

Pondering wrote:

We live in a representative democracy. 

That’s true but I would add that we also live in a constitutional monarchy that has enshrined a parliamentary democracy. I think it’s important to emphasize that the constitution is supreme in Canada even when the majority of representatives in Parliament don’t agree with the constitution.

NorthReport

Thanks Unionist

Pogo wrote:

And another thread drills down into crazy. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think you’re the one who’s “twisting words,” “twisting themselves into pretzels,” putting words into others mouths, and making a “stupid claim.”

Pondering wrote:

I'd love to know who it is you think has the power to impose a PM on the house. 

Unionist wrote:

Legally? Her Majesty in right of Canada, as represented by her Governor-General. That's who has the power. Surprised you didn't know that.

In practice? The same. Michaelle Jean, eager to hang on to her position or whatever her selfish motivation was, dissolved Parliament rather than appoint Stéphane Dion as PM, even though she was presented with unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House. She simply sabotaged the House's ability to proceed to that vote. Yes, the G-G has a whole lot of theoretical and practical power. 

The GG does not in practice or in law have the power to impose a PM on Canada that is rejected by the House of Commons. 

When the GG prorogued parliament at the request of Harper she was not imposing a PM on Canadians. She was giving permission to the Prime Minister of the day to close parliament until after Christmas. While it was an unusual request the GG, bending over backwards not to interfere, granded his request. 

She did not have "unassailable proof that Dion had the confidence of the House". She was approached by Dion and Layton who claimed they had the support of the house. Each individual representative in the house has the right to cast their vote as they please even if the party tries to whip the vote. Representatives serve at the pleasure of the people not the party. The party can eject them from the party but not from the seat. 

Had she not prorogued parliament Harper would still have been PM. She couldn't just appoint Dion as Unionist suggests. The vote would still have come and it is possible the Liberals would still have replaced Dion before the vote. If Harper lost the confidence vote Dion would then have to claim to have the confidence of the house and he would have had to present a throne speech and the house would still have had the final say on whether or not to accept him as PM.

We live in a representative democracy. 

Pondering - you are close at one point but very, very wrong.

Your premise started out that the House of Commons can reject one Liberal in favour of choosing another. People piled on saying that this cannot happen.

You keep speaking about confidence in a PM or leader. There is no such mechanism. The House has no role in declaring confidence in an individual.

The House has the role of declaring confidence in a government only.

What this means is that if the House withdrew confidence in a government that Party is no longer the government. This does not change the leader of that party. The result is either an election with the same leader competing with other parties or in rare cases the GG can ask the opposition to form a government. There is no way at all for the House or the GG to select a leader of a party or a PM from non leaders.

The sole choice of the leader of a party or a PM if that party is in government is the party itself if the leader does not resign. The Commons ONLY option would be to bring down the government which means bringing dow the party or coalition in power. It cannot mean selecting and testing a member of that party as an alternate leader.

I simply have no idea where you got this idea or why you keep flogging it, without anything to back it up, in the face of people reminding you that confidence is a mechanism that relates to governments of parties (or coalitions) but not individuals.

Paladin1

This SNC stuff is hillarious to watch. Calling people to testify not under oath? Great move there. I hope the Liberals keep this up lol

Butts and Wernick come across as sleazy cars salesmen.

bekayne

Paladin1 wrote:

This SNC stuff is hillarious to watch. Calling people to testify not under oath? Great move there. I hope the Liberals keep this up lol

JWR wasn't under oath either. This isn't the U.S.

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=1030&param=152

While a witness may be required to swear an oath, and indeed there is provision for this in the Parliament of Canada Act, this is an infrequent practice because lying, misleading and giving false evidence constitute clear contempt of the House of Commons and its privileges, even if an oath is not taken. However, it can be argued that in some cases witnesses may seek to shield behind the immunity afforded to them in respect of the use of the oral or written evidence at a subsequent proceeding. A solution to this problem would be to have witnesses give evidence under oath. If a witness made a defamatory or untrue statement under oath, he or she would be subject to prosecution for perjury under the Criminal Code. Some committees, depending on the nature of their inquiries, may consider the possibility of increased reliance on an oath or affirmation.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​

There is absolutely no mechanism for this. The only tool regarding confidence is a non-confidence vote and such a vote is confidence in the government.

 

The mechanism is a vote of non-confidence in the HoC. I never said otherwise. Whether it's a vote of non-confidence in the government or the PM makes not a wit of difference. Both the PM and the government fall. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  If it were to fall there would be an election. Trudeau would be expected to run and there is nothing stopping him from doing so. 

Because we are late in the mandate you are correct that at this point an election would be called. If Harper had lost another election might not have been called. The GG could have decided to allow Dion and Layton to have a go at forming government and they would have had to face the house for a vote of confidence. If they failed the GG would have to either call an election or ask the House if anyone else has the confidence of the house. 

If the government falls even though it is a majority because Liberal MPs voted non-confidence in "the government" I think Trudeau would have a tough time remaining leader of the party. 

Let's say there was an independent in the house called Bernie Sanders that 60% of the representatives in the house supported. Are you saying the GG would refuse to give him a chance to form government because he doesn't belong to a party? 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 ​Canada does not have any seperate mechanism to choose or depose party leaders by caucus. (The caucus can do this in Australia or the UK but not here.) 

I never suggested they did. If Trudeau lost the support of around 16 members of caucus, they, along with the other members of the HoC, would be able to get rid of Trudeau as PM at the next confidence vote. 

If Trudeau loses a confidence vote in the House when he has a majority government I think he would have a difficult time remaining leader of the party. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 No system in the world (that I know of) gives any role to opposition members to select a leader from a governing caucus. You can see the conflict of interest there. 

Probably because it makes zero sense.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The thing you may be confusing this with is the process of getting confidence in the first place. On election night if the result is clear the other parties concede defeat allowing the GG to call on the victorious one.  

I'm not confused. I was not trying to give a formal lecture on the mechanisms of parliamentary procedure. 

My point was really simple. A PM, to remain PM, must have the confidence of the house. I put "elected" in quotes to indicate that the house doesn't actually literally elect the PM. Again DUH. 

A PM who has a majority generally does have the confidence of the house. I'm not going to check my math but I believe that Trudeau has a 15 or 16 seat advantage. If that many MPs turned against him to the point where they voted non-confidence triggering an election I think Trudeau would have a difficult time remaining leader of the party. 

As the nitpicking continued the conversation evolved.

Canadians do not elect Prime Ministers or political parties. We elect representatives that by convention usually belong to political parties. The party with the most seats generally presents their leader to the GG but we could elect all independents to parliament. We don't elect parties. We elect representatives some of whom belong to parties. 

If Canadians elected all independents, would another election have to be called? I don't think so. I think the MPs would expected to get together and figure out who they should present as prime minister. 

How about if independents got a plurality of votes? A majority?

In Canada, we elect representatives. The Prime Minister must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain Prime Minister. A GG will not remove a PM that has the confidence of the house. A GG will not insist a PM remain in place that does not have the confidence of the house. 

Our representatives bow down to the power of their respective parties but they are not required to.

Canadians elect a representative to represent them in the HoC.  We do not elect parties. Our representatives have a mandate from the people to represent the people. This is why a representative is free to cross the floor. 

Our representatives have the ultimate power to make or break a PM/Government. Whether or not they use it is another matter. 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You keep speaking about confidence in a PM or leader. There is no such mechanism. The House has no role in declaring confidence in an individual.

The House has the role of declaring confidence in a government only.

Correct.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The sole choice of the leader of a party or a PM if that party is in government is the party itself if the leader does not resign.

Correct.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I simply have no idea where you got this idea or why you keep flogging it, without anything to back it up, in the face of people reminding you that confidence is a mechanism that relates to governments of parties (or coalitions) but not individuals.

I know exactly where she pulled that idea from - but out of courtesy and respect, I'll keep that information to myself.

Pogo Pogo's picture

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/simon-harris-survives-motion-...

Sure seems that the House can vote confidence on individuals...

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/simon-harris-survives-motion-...

Sure seems that the House can vote confidence on individuals...

Do you have the text of that failed motion of non-confidence? Just want to verify the wording. Thanks!

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/simon-harris-survives-motion-...

Sure seems that the House can vote confidence on individuals...

Please read this thread more carefully as your post makes no sense.

We are talking about Canada not the Dail.

I already gave two other examples where such a process exists: Australia and the UK.

Congrats you added Ireland. By the way they do not call their legislative body the House it is the Dail.

Pages