An opinion by Andrew Heard, Associate Professor Political Science Dept., Simon Fraser University;
The wording of the motion, however, indicates that it should be considered a clear vote of confidence. What is important in this motion is that the House must collectively is express its view on whether the government should resign. One cannot vote for the motion without agreeing that the government should resign, which is the essence of a non-confidence vote. While the wording of the motion is convoluted, the essential content is a clear expression of non-confidence.It should not matter what procedural context a vote of confidence occurs in. The fundamental basis of a confidence vote is that the elected members of the legislature express their collective view of the government. If that view conveys a loss of confidence or states that the government should resign, then the government must either resign or call an election.
The current motion is strikingly similar, in procedural terms, to that proposed by H.H Stevens on June 26, 1926. That motion also recommended that a committee report be amended and precipitated the whole King-Byng crisis, when the Governor General refused a dissolution to King on the grounds that he should not avoid a confidence motion then before the House but not voted on; this was the Stevens' motion. For information on those motions, see: House of Commons Debates, 1926, Vol.V, p.4832 and p.4933.
Where a motion is passed that appears to convey a loss of confidence but some ambiguity remains, the precedents indicate the proper constitutional course of action is for the government to introduce its own confidence motion within a few days. The wording of the May motion certainly conveys enough of the essence of confidence that the government should at a minimum respond to its passage with its own clearly-worded motion of confidence.
In light of the past precedents, and especially the relevance of the 1926 motions on the Customs Affair, the current motion appears to be clearly a vote of confidence which would require the government to resign or call an election in the event it loses the vote.
So tell me, why are we NOT rioting in the streets?
It's freakin' 1933 germany, all we need is brownshirts carrying little red book manifestos, marching arm in arm to complete the picture.
It's time for civil disobedience to the dictatorship.
I believe that if the Liberals continue to ignore our most sacred institution then there should be a boycott of parliament.
R. King
Daryl, the time for civil disobedience was prior to April 30th (ok, May 2nd this year). What's that? You actually paid your taxes? Guess what, you just voted for the government where it really counts, with your wallet.
No need for an election.
The GG is empowered to ask Stephen Harper to attempt to form a government, lest the Prime Minister fails to get the next vote of non confidence into his favour(although Andrew Heard makes it clear yesterday's process was an adequate demonstration of non confidence).
And that is really the crux of the matter... will he do the honourable thing today and bring forth a (his) government's motion for another vote of non confidence? I think the nation should be holding its breath. Failure to do so, and in turn failure of the GG to act accordingly, irreversibley damages the legitimacy of the government and makes a mockery of the entire parliamentary process.
If that happens, or should I say, if it fails to happen, then we should all hit the streets. I owe it to my kid and you yours.
This guy gives a good, sensible assessment of what that vote last night meant. This wasn't a case of "A Bill to Adopt The Spruce Tree As The National Tree Of Canada" which failed to pass, and the Opposition vociferously claiming that this means the government is invalid. This was "The Government Stinks and Should Get Out", with a lot of buildup so everyone knew what was coming and could think about it and get ready, and IT PASSED. Now the government is saying, "Oh, but you didn't say 'Simon Says', so it doesn't count."
Adrienne Clarkson has to finally earn her paycheque.
Is the Government acting illegally ? What is the
Governor General going to do about it ? What will the Queen's view be when she visits Saskatchewan and Alberta in a weeks time ?
Is the Government acting illegally ? What is the
Governor General going to do about it ? What will the Queen's view be when she visits Saskatchewan and Alberta in a weeks time ?
Does anyone seriously think that Clarkson an ex cbcer and Liberal sympathizer will ask Harper to try and form a government ? It wouldnt surprise me if she asked Layton to try . lol