Talk:2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute/Archive 3

New Poll Results

Looking at new poll results show that Harper has a crushing lead. Link=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081205/canada/canada_us_politics_poll. These should be added to the other polls already here.Jeremy D. (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but some context is required. All this poll says is that Canadians were pissed off with the concept of a coalition; this will return to the recently usual 35/30/18/10/8 polling soon enough. It really just reflects the current war of rhetoric. Mindmatrix 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls are only a reflection of what the public has been told by the media; I believe there may even be some McLuhan-ite citations for that kind of theory/maxim/observation and it's quite "provable". And through all this the public wasn't reminded that a very similar coalition was advanced by Harper himself in 2004, and instead was inundated with repeated negative statments about the current one only. Advertising works and has proven results, especially in politics; much the same applies to nearly any other issue and was also a feature of Liberal regimes (hence the sponsorship scandal. Don't mean to be overstating the obvious, but polls are only worth what was paid for them...often expressly by the same people who paid for the advertising they're checking on the results of....in computing theory this same principle is known as "garbage in, garbage out".Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Canadian parliamentary crisis

I believe that dispute is better than crisis, as crisis would be more appropriate if it led to succession or civil war, which should be highly unlikely in Canada. Demonstrations are taking place, but I don't believe the atmosphere is as heated as it was before the GG's decision. GoldDragon (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The King-Byng Affair, America's Nullification Crisis, the succession crisis caused by the death of William Henry Harrison and the 1876 US presidential election dispute didn't result in secession or civil war, but they're still generally regarded as political crises. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing "civil war" into this is a bit extreme, is it not? There are many crises (some examples noted by Gordon Ecker) which don't lead to civil war. In fact, most do not. I know you said "which should be highly unlikely in Canada", but frankly, it shouldn't even be in the realm of consideration for this article. Anyway, media have been referring to it as a constitutional crisis, which may or may not be accurate. Nobody, at least in the media I've observed, has actually provided reasoning for this. Mindmatrix 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The news media likes to use the word crises. It helps boost their ratings. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dion resigns as Liberal party leader

I've added this into the Aftermath section with a ref to the google copy of The Canadian Press' text of his resignation statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New section about unity crisis

I've added a new section regarding the "unity crisis". It's been discussed in the media ad nauseum now, so an explanation is warranted. It needs a bit of balance, though almost everyone in the media and academica are critical of Harper's statements about "separatists", and the effect this may have on Quebec. It also needs to integrate info from other sections in the article to streamline things a bit. Mindmatrix 03:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if the Quebec Liberals win a majority government in the Quebec provincial election (Dec 8), the Ottawa situation (i.e Harper's BQ bashing) won't seem to have disturbed soverignist. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The effect will probably be less pronounced than what is claimed by the media, but it does appear the Conservatives support in Quebec has decreased as a result of Harper's comments, at least in the short term. Whether this drop is sustained into the next federal election (and the likely beneficiaries of that drop) is still undetermined. Mindmatrix 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that this section has transformed into a somewhat Conservative viewpoint (this is what I originally added, this is the most recent version as I type this). To be clear, media and academia are consistent that the discussion of a unity crisis was precipitated by the Tories, not the formation of the coalition itself. Moreover, there seems to have been a minor shifting in the references so that they are no longer attached to the claims they were meant to support, which is irritating. Frankly, the whole section is now poorly phrased and is illogically formed, though there are some elaborations and improvements to wording in a few sentences.

I'm going to restore some of the original phrasing, and I'll try to incorporate some of the changes made since then, including a note about Conservative viewpoints. I'll also remove the contentious wording from my original phrasing, though I'll retain info that was sourced (eg - Conservative MPs referring to Dion as a traitor). Mindmatrix 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording for paragraph:

Original:

“ Harper's words may have negative future consequences for the Conservative party in Quebec, since Quebecers "tend to view the sovereignist parties as legitimate political formations".[48] Antonia Maioni, head of the Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University, stated that "[Harper] is portraying not only the Bloc Québécois but Quebecers in general as being a threat to national unity in Canada".[49] Duceppe stated that "[Harper] asked his supporters to engage in the worst attacks against Quebecers since Meech Lake",[44] and also noted that in Harper's address to the nation, the English-language broadcast used the term "separatist", whereas the French-language version used the term souverainistes (sovereignists). ”

Updated:

“ The proposed coalition has polarized opinion across the country: in the nine primarily English-speaking provinces, the Conservatives enjoyed increased support, with the strongest opposition to the coalition in Alberta, where some said they feared being political marginalized by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe, all of whom were from Eastern Canada.[44][45] The party, however, lost support in Quebec, where inhabitants "tend to view the sovereignist parties as legitimate political formations."[46] Antonia Maioni, head of the Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University, stated that "[Harper] is portraying not only the Bloc Québécois but Quebecers in general as being a threat to national unity in Canada."[47] ”

The entire point of this section was to discuss the national unity points, not the popular opinion stats available elsewhere in the article. The rewritten text instead reverses it to discuss the sentiments in Alberta, using an editorial in the Edmonton Sun as a citation. The editorial is not appropriate for use as a citation (just as the Don Newman editorial was removed, by the same user who added this one). I'm reverting this section to discuss only the effects in Quebec, since that is the focus of a "national unity crisis". Moreover, the use of language is important to this discussion, and was also mentioned in many media reports. If you object to the wording, please discuss it here. Mindmatrix 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is undue weight to have three or four viewpoints pointing out the "separatists"/"sovereigntists" distinction, and there isn't any point in having several commentators repeat the same thing.

Other commentators have suspected that the Bloc may influence gov't policy when the coalition was announced, as it was not just Conservative suggestions. That caused an uproar especially in Western Canada, Albertans didn't need to wait for the Conservatives to realize that. National unity as an issue can't just revolve strictly around Quebec. Western alienation is also a national unity aspect, especially if it was revived by the possibility of the Bloc party sharing power.

Support for the Conservatives increased in the provinces outside Quebec is also relevant, in how the coalition polarized opinion. The sentiment from English-speaking provinces isn't unrelevant to national unity as an issue.

I don't think that traitor adds anything new to the discussion, as it has been taken out of context. I did not use the editorial's opinion, just some facts that the editorial.

GoldDragon (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To address your notes:

There is undue weight to have three or four viewpoints pointing out the "separatists"/"sovereigntists": the matter of word choice in the english/french broadcasts was an issue; the effects of that on the citizens of Quebec was a separate issue; the political reaction to it was a third issue, though some balance could be provided for Duceppe's statement

Other commentators have suspected that the Bloc may influence gov't policy when the coalition was announced: provide a citation, or you're simply adding original research. The citation should pre-date the Tory talk of a unity crisis, to demonstrate that the formation of the coalition caused an uproar especially in Western Canada, instead of that uproar being caused by Tory remarks about the coalition. Prove causality, don't offer it as an opinion.

National unity as an issue can't just revolve strictly around Quebec: national unity is about Quebec; references to unity crisis are about Quebec; we can have a separate section about Western alienation, but that's a distinctly separate issue

Support for the Conservatives increased in the provinces outside Quebec is also relevant: sure, but that's covered elsewhere in the article (Polling section, under Public response). It is immaterial to a discussion about the unity crisis; it is illogical to put that material there

I don't think that traitor adds anything new to the discussion: the media disagrees, having provided significant coverage about this. The fact that the term traitor was used in conjunction with the phrase separatist coalition makes it very relevant

Again, the point of this section is to discuss the effects in Quebec, which is quite relevant, and for which the media had extensive coverage. Mindmatrix 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the multiple viewpoints as truly seperate issues, as they all argue the same thing. The word choice has been mentioned in several other places of the article. I personally believe that Charest's point at the end is overkill, but I have not removed it yet.

For the Bloc wielding influence, the citations come from the columnists. Tory MPs in Calgary were flooding with complaints about Bloc influence from citizens, and there is talk of a western party to counter the Bloc. This happened independently of the Tories pointing out national unity.

We don't need a seperate section to mention potential western alienation, so it can go here.

If we mention that the Conservatives may lose support in Quebec, mention their support outside Canada as well. I prefer both rather than relegating both to the polling section. It is perfectly logical, and balanced.

I revamped the section to discuss national unity in general, not just with regard to Quebec, and to remove considerable duplication.

GoldDragon (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

and to remove considerable duplication: no, you removed several unique bits of content, and added yet another mention of polling and popularity.

Tory MPs in Calgary were flooding with complaints about Bloc influence from citizens: irrelevant speculation if you don't provide citations

there is talk of a western party to counter the Bloc: it was called the Canadian Alliance; please quit taking your information from blogs and talk radio, and start providing real sources.

You have also parroted your earlier statements, and yet again failed to provide any shred of proof to justify their inclusion in the article. Simply stating the same thing repeatedly does not prove any of your points. The onus is on you to provide the proof for your claims, and if you cannot, the content will be removed. Further, any deletion of properly cited material, as you did for various bits in that section, will be reverted. You have utterly failed to address any of the concerns I've presented above, have completely ignored the request for citations, and have not discussed the individual issues presented below. Reverting my edits immediately by restoring the same text (or substantially similar text) as previous edits by you, which were unsourced, also demonstrates that you're unwilling to accept anything other than your interpretation of events. Mindmatrix 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW: in reading that Calgary Herald piece, there's no mention of the formation of a western party, only an off-the-cuff remark from the CEO of one company that "Maybe we do need a western separatist party to represent the West". That's just idle speculation. Mindmatrix 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A few days before prorogation ("before and after prorogation" is how I'm starting to chronologically think of things...) either CBC or CTV had a repeated piece on the Alberta Separation Party/Alberta Separatist Party (whatever it's called) getting tons of calls and sign-ups....apparently that CEO didn't know about them....or watching whichever of those two networks it was on..Skookum1 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To GoldDragon and others, re linkages such as this:

That caused an uproar especially in Western Canada, Albertans didn't need to wait for the Conservatives to realize that.

Please STOP equating "Alberta" with "Western Canada". Opinion and public attitudes/culture in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are certifiably different than in Alberta. This is a common usage by Albertans and used by Albertan opinion-makers/spinners, and is widely used by the national media who need to treat "the West" as itf it were one region instead of four provinces. whether in the text of the article or in discussions on this page, please do NOT continue to present/portray Albertan opinion as if it were "Western Canadian" opinion. Alberta is only part of the West, and the opinions of Calgarian and Edmontonian politicians and pundits are not identical with the opinions of British Columbians, Saskatchewanians or Manitobans, be they the public or the press/politicians. Again, please avoid making such parallels/linkages in future, it does not help the discussion and panders to "political mythology. And is in and of itself a "spin". If it occurs in a quoted item, the distinction should be noted in any accompanying commentary/description. Just because the Toronto/Quebec-based media gets it wrong, and Albertan punditry/politicians/media like it that way, doesn't mean it's right, "common usage" or not.Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues

The sentence The Conservative Party has suggested that the proposed coalition could spark a national unity crisis is a Tory talking point, not the general consensus of the media and scholars. It is a significantly POV statement. The original statement The reaction from the Conservative party to the coalition was to frame the parliamentary impasse as a national unity crisis is far more accurate, and supported by the citation I provided. If you believe you version is accurate, please provide a reference which cites independent parties making such claims. (I've found a few that make such reports, but use Tories as sources; these don't qualify as reliable sources.) Mindmatrix 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence fragment the Bloc would have considerable influence in creating policy since they would hold the balance of power in parliament uses a blog post and an editorial as references. Nothing in the "Full comment" section of the National Post website is a valid reference. No editorials should be used to support such bold claims. This should be removed. Mindmatrix 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence The strongest opposition to the coalition was in Alberta, where fear was expressed at being politically marginalized by its eastern-based leaders is POV and original research. It also has nothing to do with the unity crisis of Quebec. If it warrants mention, it should be in a separate Western alienation section. Mindmatrix 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So long as "Western alienation" is defined as a phrase used by Albertans and by the national media to mean "Albertan alieantion" :-)....There is a Western alienation article already, I think, or Western Canadian separatism.Skookum1 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Anti-coalition rally organizers, however, emphasized that their opposition was to the Bloc's associations with the coalition, not Quebecers in general may or may not be valid here. It may be more appropriate in the "Rallies" section. Mindmatrix 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As in a lot of things, not just politics, there's a big difference between an objective source, and a POV source; but in politics, where there are organized "information campaigns" ("disinformation offices"), it behooves NPOV for POV sources to always be named and pointed out as such, and in the interests of "balanced coverage" (which generally is a right-wing buzzphrase) any time such a POV source is produced, the person providing it should try and find counter-balance in another account; simply adding the one and not hte other is clearly a POV edit....Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Dion defended the coalition accord, saying that "fellow Quebecers who believe in separation are more likely to be reconciled with Canada if we work with them than if we marginalize them". Several suggested that Dion, a staunch federalist and the author of the Clarity Act, had gone against his principles by taking part in negotiations with the Bloc.[47][53] was modified from its original meaning. Reference 47 supports only the Dion quotation, not that he had broken his principles. The other reference supplied for that statement makes no such claim. Mindmatrix 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The root of the problem is you are using the entire section to prove the assertion discussion of a unity crisis was precipitated by the Tories, not the formation of the coalition itself, so it would be inevitably condemned to POV. This is also another assertion: The reaction from the Conservative party to the coalition was to frame the parliamentary impasse as a national unity crisis. These assertions are the opinions of experts, not facts, so it belongs on the same level as the columns that I have used, who are also written by experts. I don't disagree with including the assertion, in a more mild form, but we cannot say it was purely caused by the Tories, based on just these experts, especially if people outside of Quebec reacted to the Bloc's presence in the coalition. GoldDragon (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are different meanings of "experts" that GoldDragon is confusing: one is academics, and the other, GoldDragon's, is columnists writing opinion pieces.

Thank you, MindMatrix, for taking a stand on the POV issues raised by GoldDragon's edits. 67.150.255.179 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything I quoted above were statements you placed directly in the article. What you quoted was a line by me in this discussion, which neither appears in any version of the text of the article, nor is the text even skewed that way. It states that the Tories "framed" the argument that way - that's quite different.

As the anon indicated, the reportage of an experts words in the media (that is, independent reporting of statements) is quite different from editorialisation from self-proclaimed experts. Moreover, people outside of Quebec reacted to the Bloc's presence in the coalition may be true, but people throughout Canada reacted to the announcement. The point you've been making, with no supporting references, was that Albertans/western Canadians interpreted this as a national unity crisis before the Tories started framing the colaition in those terms.

Anyway, you've demonstrated that you're unwilling to truly discuss this, and you still haven't provided any references to support any of the claims in your version of the text. I'm filing an RFC to seek neutral, third-party input about this. Mindmatrix 15:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has Stockwell Day denying he'd ever work with separatists not been mentioned yet? For anyone who hasn't heard, Day made the aforementioned statement in the House of Commons, and the Bloc Quebecois proceeded to hand out copies of a letter Day (leader of the Alliance Party at the time) sent to Conservative and Bloc leadership prior to the 2000 election proposing a coalition of the three. Day further denied that he would work with separatists. The Bloc proceeded to hand out copies of a Globe and Mail article, in which Day was quoted as saying he wouldn't rule out a coalition with the Bloc. As Canadians reading this know, the Globe is the most highly-regarded newspaper in the country. Ergo, the man once again proves himself an opportunistic liar. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Past Fed & Prov coalition governments

Folks, the 1985-87 Ontario government was not a coalition government. It was a Liberal minority government, propped up by the NDP. Recommend we remove it from the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again; we should delete the mentioning of the Ontario government, from that section. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Harper/Duceppe/Layton alliance re Martin, 2004

Another friend forwarded me a letter from Harper, Duceppe and Layton, jointly signed, to G-G Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, which was forwarded to him by Mel Hurtig. I'v aksed for a response as to whether it is in any citable publication, as it obviously is pertinent to the proceedings no underway/in abeyance and the subject-mater of this article...Skookum1 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing about Harper, Layton & Duceppe requesting Governor General Clarkson (in November 2005) to forego an election & appoint them as a coalition government? GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Google only finds blogs with this text. Here are the search results. Mindmatrix 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll write back and see if there's a publication (even off-line)_ that printed it....and it doesn't surprise me that the major media haven't mentioned/printed it, as it's very inconvenient to the POV agendas of the privately-owned news monopolies, though it's questionable why the CBC hasn't published it.....theoretically it's a matter of the public record, "if it exists" (which of course it does - Hurtig doesn't make stuff like this up!). Am I being paranoid? No, only in the Pynchonesque sense (paranoia is justified when the facts are real"). it may eventually be part of the story that t he major media ignored it while repeating Harper's denunciation of Dion and Layton for forming an alliance with Duceppe....'cause guaranteed if lowly Skookum1 got this in his inbox, there are national-exposure reporters/columnists who had it quite a while ago....and have either remained silent on it by choice, or at their publisher's/editor's insistence....I look forward to the coverage in teh Edmonton Sun and 'Alberta Reports....LOL "as if!" huh?Skookum1 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned[1][2][3][4] but not the full text. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Funny thing that - no full text. Of course we're used to that in BC, never the full story on anything....cf the struggle for evidence disclosure and court bans and blanked items in Ledgegate...(another current-event article which could use this much attention, and deserves this much interest too...). Got me going though, I'm curious now what the Edmonton Sun reports it in the context of....."The truth is out there", as Fox Mulder would opine....Skookum1 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The first Edmonton Sun article is Canadian Press wirecopy, not Edmontonian editoralizing/rationalizing (which I was hoping for, admittedly, just for entertainment value), though they no doubt slimmed it down a bit; but it took 'til the end to get to the following, which I think is a propos for the article body here:

The Conservative’s claim that a coalition government would have no legitimacy does not accord with Harper’s own position on the matter just four years ago.

In September 2004, Harper wrote to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson to argue that she should “consider all your options” if the Liberal minority of Paul Martin was to fall on a confidence vote.

“We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation,” Harper wrote.

Harper co-signed the letter with Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

The best thing to do would be cite Canadian Press rather than the Sun though, i.e. it's like citing Nationmaster as it it weren't wiki to start with, it's just a mirror of another source , in this case CP. Unless the main CP version is noticeably different of course (i.e. maybe longer, has stuff this one doesn't have, different order maybe(). We don't have the full text but at least we have citations for the key chunks of it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wedge issue

I've removed the following from the text:

“ Quebec is the Wedge issue for the Conservative party, first being demonstrated in Harper's stand on Arts Funding. ”

It didn't quite fit in, and uses what is essentially a blog as a reference. I think the point is probably valid, but it needs better sourcing and placement within the text. Mindmatrix 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more thorough sourcing from the Vancouver Sun from October 2008 and though a blog entry, it is from the Globe and Mail Blogs from December 5th. And an article that discusses the different words used in the English and French versions of his speech (separatist or sovereigntist respectfully). I'll put it in with all of the citations, if there are too many, just take some out. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

“ Quebec is the Wedge issue for the Conservative party, first being demonstrated in Harper's stand on Arts Funding. ”

}} }} }} }}

Chantal Hebert and one other commentator agreed about that on the late-night panel show on the night of the 3rd said that, in almost exactly those words; I don't know if there's a transcript or a web-video of it, maybe. That was the same panel I mentioned in previous discussions where the idea of a "prorogation with conditions" was possible (again Hebert's words, but in the context of a discussion about all the possibilities emerging as the day went on, the conditions that could have been imposed might be, among other things, no Orders-in-council - which strike me as undemocratic in the first place, but moreso when issued by a minority government) Anyway the wedge issue thing's not jsut in blogspace....and it's one of those "the sky is blue" obvious things, enit? "Self-evident truths" i believe they're called.Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It may also be what decides the outcome of this entire process. These kinds of issues, when the polarize the electorate, both strengthen the base of certain parties, but also define their opposition. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but unfortunately we also have an obligation to provide citations for the material we contribute here, and the citations must satisfy certain conditions (WP:RS). Skookum1, I believe I heard the same thing during an "At issue" panel last week. Perhaps it's buried somewhere in the At issue home page at the CBC? I can't view the videos (I don't have flash player, nor is there a version for my operating system), so someone else will have to dig through those to find it. I'm sure there are other sources which use different wording, for example "dividing", to illustrate the same point. Mindmatrix 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But do we need a transcript of what was said, or is a link to the video sufficient? You'd think with closed-captioning and services for the deaf there'd be a text version, I'll poke around their site when I get a chance....Skookum1 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A link to the video would be sufficient, though a transcript is better. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is in this image?

I added this image to the page. Layton and Dion are in it, and I believe that is Gerard Kennedy second from the left, but is there anyone else worth noting in it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dion, Layton & Kennedy are the only ones I recognize. They're main ones to mention. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The man on the right, behind the red portion of the flag, is Senator David Smith, a "high-ranking" and very experienced Liberal from Ontario. CBHA (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The bespectacled head peeking out behind Kennedy's left shoulder is NDP MP David Christopherson. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters but I'm almost certain that's Carolyn Bennett on the far left, with her face partly obscured by the microphone. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Never before..."

I just noticed the addition of the fact tag to this recent addition:

Never before under the Westminster model has a dissolution been refused to the largest party, which has increased its seats at the polls and passed a Speech from the Throne.

that may well be citable from a contemporary columnist who may have said it, but a review of events in Westminster itself back into the 18th Century may turn up an exception or two; i.e. a citation does not necessairly mean it is or isn't the case, if the reporter saying it is ill-informed; I've seen claims taht this or that scandal was the worst in BC's history, likewise, when "history" means only 10 years not hte full 150...but making this comment/entry mostly to note that sentences which begin "Never before..." are rhetorical in quality and POV in tone; if this stays, and if it's true it of course will, but it should be written with such a tone; more like "this is the first time that..." rather than "never before"....sounds a lot in tone like speechifying, as in "never again...".Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether true or not, it is argumentative (clearly a Tory talking point) and therefore needs to be attributed to somebody speaking about the current controversy. 67.150.252.201 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a preposterous sentence with far too many conditions. "under Westminster model", "largest party", "increased seats", "passed a Speech from the Throne". Today is the first time in all history, when it is snowing at noon on a Tuesday, and Venus and Jupiter are in the night sky, with the Canadian dollar below 80 cents US and interest rate drop of .75, that a Liberal leadership candidate whose first name is Bob, has abandoned the race. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A straw man argument. None of those circumstances you mention have any constitutional significance. The sentence you removed probably does, at least in distinguishing this crisis from any previous one in history. I'll rephrase it if you like, but it needs to be said. RodCrosby (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a source attached to any such statement. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Claim r.e. dismissal of GG

I realise the inserting editor said that a ref was to follow, but I removed the still unsourced claim: Constitutional scholars are in agreement that the Prime Minister also has the power to recommend to the Queen that the incumbent Governor General be dismissed, and the Queen must accept this advice. While the PM would certainly be within his rights in recommending a replacement for the present Govenor General, there's no guarantee the Queen would follow this advice. I'd be very interested to see the numerous cites that show constitutional scholars to say otherwise. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I have the very article open in front of me and was adding it as a source, it does not affirm the claim about the Queen, as User:RodCrosby seems to feel it does. It makes mention of Ted McWhinney's opinion on the matter, but that is hardly absolute proof that it is true, nor does one constitutional scholar's opinion mean that "constitutional scholars are in agreement." Further, by reverting, RodCrosby has replaced the unique capitalisation of certain words. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

McWhinney is often called upon by Canadian media as the dean of constitutional legal opinion, but that's the media's opinion of him...he's certainly been the "go-to guy" over the years in press commentaries...anyway my reason for commenting here is that if the Queen does have that power, it would seem to be one of the last remaining powers of the Crown, i.e. of the monarch, in the Canadian system...a rarity indeed; the 1982 Constitution was supposed to remove all remaining "apron strings" from the British monarch; this would seem to be an exception. And it would be political dynamite to use...L-G's can be removed by the Prime Minster and/or G-G I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

While it obviously needs to be sourced, I think the intention of the statement isn't to show that the Queen would not be able to deny such a request because of legal grounds, but that she would not be able to deny it on practical grounds. If the Queen puts herself above the elected representatives, she risks a significant backlash, not only in that nation, but across the Commonwealth. Resolute 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be the intent, but the sources don't support it. I have McWhinney's book open here now, and the quote in the Globe and Mail article refers to the 1975 situation in Australia. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada is bound by the same conventions and reserve powers of the Governor General. The events in Australia in 1975 are precedent for what could potentially happen in Canada in 2009. I have added another (Australian) constitutional scholar as a source [5], in which he says

Thus the Canadian scholar W.P.M. Kennedy remarked that [I]t is not too much to say that in practice no "reserve powers" can exist in a Dominion, for the simple reason that a governor-general who persisted in refusing ministerial advice would be at once recalled on the advice of his ministry given direct to the King.

RodCrosby (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right, but it doesn't address the fact that the article currently doesn't reflect what the sources say. There remains no support for the claim about constitutional scholars being in agreement, for example, nor for the Queen being absolutely bound to accept the PM's advice in any such circumstance. In fact, as I read through the material, it's starting to appear as though the section will just be an amassed collection of tangential theories that may be pertinent elsewhere but are not wholly relevant here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

McWhinney is certainly a respected constitutional scholar but he also has definite point-of-view that he argues for the supremacy of the prime minister and that point-of-view is his and is disputed by other constitutional scholars. It is reasonable to quote it as McWhinney's view, if the exact quote can be found (though I am sure that is his view), but other views should also be mentioned for balance. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that what I've inserted clarifies who said what. I do wonder, though, if this article is quickly becoming Wikiquote! (By my fault as much as anyone else's, of course.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC regarding unity crisis section

Note: this request regards the New section about unity crisis discussion above. Mindmatrix 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that this RFC is asking for comment on the contents of a section in the Discussion Page? I.e., asking for a discussion of a discussion? Thanks, CBHA (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No; the issue it the unity crisis section, and its neutrality. I simply linked to the discussion that led to this RFC, for the convenience of those who participate in the RFC. There's information there regarding various versions of that section, and issues with specific statements, which I didn't want to duplicate. Mindmatrix 16:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced or ill-sourced

This is quoted from the "Aftermath" section of the article:

"In a caucus meeting held the same day of the prorogation, Dion's role in negotiating the deal was criticized for several reasons; as it was initiated by the NDP's Layton, Dion sacrificed the Liberal Party's federalist principles in order to grab power, not allowing dissent once it was presented to caucus, and the amateur out-of-focus video of his address to the nation that undermined public support for the coalition.[76][77]"

The impression given by the sentence is of considerable detail, as if someone in the caucus meeting had taken notes that went into the sources.

The actual sources don't support that sentence, IMO. The piece by Greg Weston from the Winnipeg Sun has only a general reference to the caucus meeting.

The only mention in the other source of a caucus meeting is that the results of an internal investigation regarding the botched video will be presented to a caucus meeting. If I have the chronology straight, this meeting will not take place until tomorrow, December 10.

I'm strongly tempted to delete the sentence as unsupported, but it would probably be better if editors closer to the matter would take a look. CBHA (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Quebec election

Well... pundits are saying that Harper's harping on separatists cost Charest 10-15 seats... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pundits, schmundits. Voters not choosing the Liberal candidates in those 10-15 seats, is what cost Charest's Liberals those seats. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They're also saying it cost Dumont official party status... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nay; the lack of votes for ADQ candidates, resulted in the ADQ loosing party status. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

References

There are numerous references in this article, generally falling into a few categories.

• reportage: reporting of events, dates, and people, with relevant quotations, are the least concern
• expert opinion: information related to academic or other qualified third-party analyses are also OK
• editorials: these should either be expunged entirely from the article, or grouped together into a media reaction section with sufficient balance
• other: quotations of opinions by political parties or their members are OK, so long as they are noted as having that bias (eg - in various version of this article, I see quotations from NDP and Conservative MPs which may affect the neutrality of this article)

All of these sources can be acceptable, but only if incorporated into the text carefully. The latter are especially troublesome, since it may result in the article's text as seeming to support a specific position (that is, taking an editorial position). Unsurprisingly, this article is laced with opinion and rhetoric (from both left- and right- political leanings), and it's becoming irritating cleaning up this mess. Mindmatrix 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed there are quite a few blogs and editorials. Generally, I've been regarding these as temporary sources that will be replaced once the article stabilizes. While we're on the subject, please try and avoid using Globe and Mail and Google-hosted Canadian Press sources. CP articles are deleted after a few months and G&M articles are turned into pay per view after about a year. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, editorials can be mentioned outside the "media reactions" section to the extent that they themselves contributed to the development of events. This can be ascertained from non-opinion pieces which mention the editorials and their effect. I think it's likely that non-opinion reporting can be found that will state directly that the general tenor of editorials in the conservative anglophone press received wide attention in Quebec. If specific editorials are mentioned, we can mention them; otherwise we stick to whatever statements appear in the non-opinion pieces.67.150.244.246 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

MINORITY coalition

Recently, the adjective "minority" was added to nearly every instance of the word "coalition"[6] because "coalition simpliciter implies a majority". While I don't dispute that the coalition formed was a minority in terms of the House of Commons because the Bloc was not in the coalition, I do object to adding it to every instance of the word as coalition does not imply a majority at all. Coalitions form all the time for any kind of purpose and there is no implication that it is necessarily a majority. I removed three of the instances of "minority" that I feel added nothing to the understanding of the issue.[7] The parties did not aim to form a minority coalition, for example, it just is one. I have now been reverted.[8] and would like input from others on this issue. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and am with you, DoubleBlue, on the excess. Once or twice, maybe, but it isn't needed everywhere. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is important the distinction is made. coalition government implies a coalition, the purpose of which, ipso facto, is to acquire "a majority." This instance isn't a case (it's not even a plurality coalition). I'm happy to have it put in "once or twice", in the most prominent and appropriate places. I shall amend, and see how you feel.... RodCrosby (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The World War I/Conscription Crisis Unionist Coalition/Party was a majority government to start; the BC Wartime Coalition was the result of the return of Pattullo's government as a minority and in order to survive as a government had to become a coalition (thereby forcing his resignation, as he didn't want/believe in the Coalition, or had campaigned not to engage in one). ipso facto coalition governments are not necessarily minority-based.Skookum1 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

fair point, but doesn't really take us far, in context. Yes, there are what we might call "supra-majoritarian" coalition governments, or superfluous or redundant coalitions. The UK was governed by them for most of the periods 1916-1922 and 1931-1945. But the point remains. When is a coalition government not a coalition government? - When it doesn't have a majority... RodCrosby (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is made at its first mention. Further mentions are superfluous. It is consistent with the use of "minority government" in the text - its noted in the intro, and then the term "government" is used, without the preceding qualifier. They're completely analogous, and should be treated in the same way for consistency in the article (there are four mentions of minority government in the text, relating to the current Conservative government, and at least 30 mentions of the word government referring to the current government). Mindmatrix 13:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Any government, that has more then one political party within it, is a coalition government (wheither it be a majority or minority, in the Legislature). PS: Again, can we please remove the Ontario example from this article? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to hear a good reason why from you; and what gets me is that while in the name-change section far above you're perfectly fine with following suit with what the media uses ("crisis") down here the media making a parallel to Ontario '85 is something you want to have taken out. If anything, the section in question shouldn't dwell only on Ontarian minorities, but also address those in BC, MB and SK....Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the Trudeau-NDP coalition 1972-74.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not a coalition government. Its was a Liberal minority government. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ontario example is insuficent. Theirs was not a coalition government; but rather a Liberal minority government (propped by the NDP). As for my pro-crises support? 'Tis my choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But still a minority government, and a de facto coalition is pretty much the same thing as a de jure one; I've pointed to several examples in Canadian history, as have other writers here; you seem to want to ignore them all. As I noted smoewhere here last night, the 1975 Socreds were very explicity a formal coalition, so much so that the members - the MLAs - from the coalition partners took the Socred name. So that's a very formal coalition; but doesn't look or sound like one because of them taking the otherwise-minority party's name....Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But not a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of my comment is that you complain on the one hand that Ontario '85 was not a formal coalition, so I pointed out a formalized coalition, so formal it had the appearance of a party (which did eventually shatter back into its coalition components, i.e. in 1991). Your argument is reductionist and circular; any formal coalition will be dismissed because it's a party (the current Conservative Party is a Reform/Alliance-Progressive Conservative coalition, remember?) and any informal coalition you'll dismiss because it's not formal. As with the "first time" and "never before' arguments/statements, you seem to be wanting to dwell on teh uniqueness of the current situation without simply being able to make comparisons to earlier coalitions - coalitions of various kinds, and minorities of various kinds - but all worthwhile comparisons. Unless there's things you dont' want people thinking/knowing about, that is....Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Conservative party is not a Reform/Alliance/Progressive Conservative coalition. The Canadian Alliance & Progressive Conservative parties dissolved a day before the creation of the Conservative party. Former members of the PC & CA, created the Conservative party. Gradually since then (December 2003), new members (who were never CA or PC members) have joined the Conservative Party (including former Liberals). GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In practical terms it IS a coalition; the window-dressing formula of dissolving the coalition partners to "make a new party' is only a de jure dodge/definition; in real-world terms they're a coalition of different compoennts, just like the Mulroney Tories were a coalition of what is now the BQ with the "real" Progressive Conservatives. The proof in the pudding will be when the Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservative elements in the party finally slide apart (as they are bound to do, sooner or later, especially if the current regime does get ousted in the spring - then the knives will be out, and the reality of the coalition will be presented to public view; same as when the BQ caucus split off from the Tories.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there. Wikipedia isn't into crystal balling, let's take things a step at a time. Speculation on the CPC's future, is getting ahead too far. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not speculating, I'm reminding that the current Tories are de facto a coalition, just as Mulroney's Tories were a coalition; you want to dismiss informal coalitions, yet refuse to admit to formalized coalitions.....my point about what may or may not happen to the Tories in 2009 is just a reminder that they, too, are not a monolithic entity and in practical and in real historical terms are a coalition; and like all thigns they have a beginning and, eventually, an end. Your attempts to shove the Ontario '85 coalition into the dustbin strike me much the same as the obsssesion with "the first time [this]", "never before [that]" - an indulgecne in trivialisms. Adn my observations about what may or may not happen next year are not my spculations; such comments are in the media already, and have been since this nonsense began; I'm only mentioning someone else's spculations, not making them myself. Your objection to that in any case is irrelevant; the issue is whether or not historical coalitions of any kind are relevant; I'd say the Mulroney "coalition with separatists" and the Stock Day willingness to horse-deal with the BQ in 2000, and Harper's own dancing with the devil in 2004 are all perfectlly legitimate comparisons; the Ontario case was simply - and not mine- a comparison to other historical coalitions/minorities. Why you want it taken out of the article remains unclear to me; what I do see is that there's lots you don't want in the article....for reasons that aren't explained, yet with the request/demadn made over and over without any kind of logic as to whySkookum1 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) But the section in the article, is about past coalition governments. That's what I'm trying to point out. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're trying to point out anything except remove examples which are inconvenient to whatever perception fo events it is you want readers to have. In your comically-titled "Clarify" section on my talkpgae, where it seems you'd like to move this discussion (and I rather you wouldn't), you're not clarifying anything; only stating over and over again the points you want others to agree with which clearly we don't. The comparison to Ontario '85 is one made widely in the media, but you want to argue that it's not releveant because it wasn't a formal coalition; but formalized coalitions are called parties (with one or two rare exceptions, like the formal coalition in BC 1941-1952). If we listened to you we couldn't make any comparisons at all (other than ones you want to particularize over, which meet your definition, which I submit is a POV definition). So on the one hand you don't like the Ontario '85 comparison "because it wasn't a coalition", even though the media and historians say that it was, and on teh flip side you want to endorse the media's incorrect use of "parliamentary crisis" and "constitutional crisis" (which scholars and independent journalists ahve pointed out is "hype" and incorrect). You seem to want it both ways insofar as respecting media-speak, and you jsut don't make any sense'. Nothing new on this page, of course....to "clarify" is the last thing you seem to be doing; you're just repeating the same inane arguments/claims over and over again and expecting others to come to your point of view without actually having a reason why your point of view should superseded the collective mind of either this talkpage, or of the media. As far as crisis vs controversy goes, I'll always stick with that latter term about this in print - it's not a constitutional crisis, it's not a parliamentary crisis; it's a controversy, as this case should prove by way of example. And please don't clutter my talkpage with your attempts to divert this discussion there; especially as all you're doing is repating things you've already said over and over here....Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well. If the majority of editors here, wish to keep the Ontario example; so be it. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason I kept bringing up Ontario, is becaus (with the exception of Skookum1) nobody was responding to my concerns here. Nobody was saying yes/no to my exclusion proposal. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that it is a coalition. If it were to make a government, it would be a minority government because it is a minority coalition. It is unnecessary and frankly undue weight to stick the word minority in front of every instance of the word coalition. They formed a coalition; they hoped to use it to form a minority government. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Strom (1990) in a survey of 345 governments worldwide, provides the following table

Composition	Majority	Minority	Total
Single-party	48	79	127
Coalition	172	46	218
Total	220	125	345

so we can see that majority coalitions are about four times as common as minority coalitions, and minority coalitions are the least-common of all the forms of government. So, both in a worldwide and Canadian context it suggests that a "minority" coalition is notable. RodCrosby (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really add anything to the context though. If it's added in front too everywhere it shows up, it also starts to take on a derogatory connotation, like "separatist" coalition. -Royalguard11(T) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest that it needs to be mentioned at every instance in the article. State the point once and be done with it. Nobody has suggested removing mention of the fact, only of the repeated mentions. Mindmatrix 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no derogatory intent, but to a casual reader, who might click on coalition government and see that coalitions are usually of the majority-type, it's important to highlight the distinction in this case. I've already removed three instances of the word minority, so as far as I can see this issue is resolved. RodCrosby (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I only see two that you removed but I appreciate that. I also think that it does not belong in the header. The section is about forming a coalition; not forming a minority coalition. If it came to govern, then by the numbers, it would be a minority government but so is the government they would be replacing. Do we place minority in front of "Conservatives" and "government" and the heading "Government response"? No, that would be silly, we already know from the beginning that the Conservatives have a minority government and we don't have to beat it into the readers' heads. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be a dissolution?

I tried inserting this quote from Vernon Bogdanor, but it was deleted on the specious grounds that it "pre-dates" the crisis. Hello? - all constitutional authorities will by necessity pre-date any crisis, and Bogdanor is a world-respected authority.

“In general, the sovereign will best preserve his or her impartiality by following

precedent and granting a dissolution wherever there is a real doubt. Were the

sovereign to fail to act according to precedent, and refuse a dissolution, it might then

be found that an alternative government could not survive - as in Canada in 1926 - or

that it was repudiated in the country, and the sovereign would be blamed. If, on the

other hand, the sovereign agreed to a dissolution, he or she would be merely inviting

the electorate to resolve the conflict. The sovereign’s approach is likely to be

dictated by prudence, and one may suspect that he or she would be unlikely ever to

refuse a dissolution unless the arguments for such a course were quite

incontrovertible…

In general, the sovereign has the right to refuse a dissolution only where the grant of

a dissolution would be an affront to, rather than an expression of, democratic rights.

In refusing a dissolution, for example, sought by an incumbent prime minister after a

defeat on the Address, where an alternative government would clearly be viable, or

where the prime minister had lost the support of his or her cabinet or party, the

sovereign would not be undermining constitutional government but defending it. Only

under circumstances of such a kind can the refusal of a dissolution be justified."

[Bogdanor, "The Monarchy and the Constitution" pp161-2, OUP, 1997]

Never before anywhere under the Westminster model has the largest party, after increasing its seats at the polls, and passing a Speech from the Throne been refused a dissolution. Such an action would truly be, in Bogdanor's words "an affront to democracy" RodCrosby (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much rhetoric, IMO. The possibility of a party other than the one holding the most seats (either with other party support or as a coalition of parties) forming a goverment has long been understood. CBHA (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In certain circumstances, yes, but never before in these extremely doubtful circumstances. The Liberals and others had their chance of defeating the Throne speech. They didn't take it. The Tories are in the electoral ascendant; the Liberals have suffered one of their heaviest defeats. There is no "coalition", since the Bloc have merely said they will not vote down the Liberal/NDP pact, but that grouping would have only 114 seats, not even a plurality of the seats. It would be a government in office, but not in power. The Governor General has to take all these factors into account, and I maintain the circumstances are nowhere near enough for her to take the extraordinary decision of denying Harper a dissolution, should it come to that. I speak as a Brit who loves Canada, with no axe to grind. If the Governor General dismisses Harper and installs the so-called coalition she will go down in infamy, and your politics will be soured for a generation. Let the people decide, after a dissolution and an election. RodCrosby (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be remiss in my duties as a Wikipedia administrator if I didn't point out that Wikipedia is not the place to debate what should or shouldn't happen in this particular set of circumstances. Our role in the article is to document what does happen, not to speculate or debate or get into partisan theatrics about whether the right or wrong thing happened. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to point out that the opinions section of the WikiNews article is wide-open and is the appropriate place for such discussions, if there is one in Wiki-dom.Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a question-mark to the sub-section. This is a discussion section. It's odd that the academic opinion of probably the world-expert on this subject is of no interest. Unlike most of the numerous opinions quoted in the article, Bogdanor's was written after sober consideration, eleven years ago, with no particular case in mind. Surely it's relevant somehow? RodCrosby (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in taking it out, but I think one issue might be that it's only one of several potentially-quotable constitutional opinions/interpretations, and there are others, including older ones and other contemporary ones. That's all I'll say as I'm aware of the subjective nature of all legal opinions, including and especially constitutional legal opinions; one excellent article the other day, somewhere, went into why the Supreme Court would not decide on this case, would not take ont eh case, if it was a case; they could provide an opinion if asked, but would likely not to do so because the fulcrum-point is the precedents binding the Governor General, and the principles underlying the Westminster Constitution. It's not for law to decide, other than to strictly apply the Constitution. And as I've noted elsewhere the 1982 Constitution did not solve the conundrum faced by the monarchy, both faced by how the monarchy operates within the system, but how the monarchy itself is faced with conundrums like the one taht was brought to Rideau Hall on the 4th, and why things took two hours. What I'm getting at is if you can find a few other constitutional opinions on this a separate article or section can be put together for constitutional opinions, same as ahs been discussed for media coverage. As there are more sides to the events than just the one by now, and too much material for any one article...parliamentary democracy was never fully resolved by the 1982 Constitution; I wish I had archives access and patience and time to go over all the stuff from that era speculating on the complications that could result of the oddity of the G-G's office were not somehow resolved. One person faced with a complex riddle, and burdened by the demands of democracy claimed by both sides; on this Trudeau gambled simple patriation, all ties to the traditions of the actual monarchy were broken...I think in Britain Law Lords could be invoked in this situation; we have no Law Senators...I'm laying this out not just by way of explanation but also to point to materials which, er, predicted a situation very like this one 25 and 26 years ago...there's more than one constitutional scholar's opinion to be accounted for here, in other words...same as not only one media network or one academic opinion should be offered, or only one public opinion..Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there may be lots of opinions, and they need to be heard. That was all I was trying to do, in making a start by offering a highly-respected opinion that was not framed during the current crisis. I don't think your courts have anything to do with this, nor should any judge proffer an opinion. These are reserve powers, envisaged as being used in extremis by an honest broker (the Queen or the G-G) to break constitutional deadlock. There are other interesting side-issues which should be mentioned, such as the fact that Harper has the right to dismiss the Governor General! RodCrosby (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

to my knowledge, and I stand ready to be corrected, only one Canadian viceroy has ever been dismissed - Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia Thomas Robert McInnes (1897-1900 as L-G)...and he deserved it i.e. it wasn't a politically-motivated dismissal. In the current climate any one opinion, as you can see, can be interpreted as being pro-one side or the other; your quote here can be taken both ways as per JGGardiner below. I'm all for expert constitutional opinions either as a section here onr on teh G-G's page or on a subpage of either; is it Walter Bagehot who wrote The British Constitution? I used to have it in Pelican, never mined its depths...Skookum1 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And re your other comment, our politics has already been soured for a generation; it could be argued tha that took place long before this series of events, which are more of a symptom than a cause.....(in BC a similar souring began, or rather got notched up a level, in '83...and a few more times since...the disaffection of the electorate in Canada is because of the stench surrounding the system.....)Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite unlike Meighen in 1926 the Liberal-NDP coalition is obviously viable, in that it would survive for a time. It commands support from a majority of MPs and would obviously survive, unless there are ten or more defections. So this quote could be read as supporting the coalition government because it clearly falls into the viable category. I'm not saying that was his intent but it is debatable how these hypothetical constructions apply to real circumstances like this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about using words like "obviously." Meighen led the largest party in 1926, so one could argue that at the time, his government looked obviously viable. Events proved that assumption to be illusory. A combined Liberal/NDP caucus of 114 in a House of 308 does not, at first blush, look "obviously" like a government-in-waiting. The Bloc have agreed merely to prop it up, and have not offered support for a full program of Government. It would therefore be a government in office but not in power. So one could argue that fails the most important of the Lascelles Principles. The Governor General is going to have to consider all of these precedents and authorities, balancing them all against each other, and Canadians would be wise to acquaint themselves with them, so when her decision comes it does not take them by surprise. As I have pointed out, there is absolutely no precedent for her to deny a dissolution to Harper in the current circumstances. RodCrosby (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Governor General also has to take into account whether or not the prime minister has the confidence of the House. Ought the GG accept the advice of a prime minister whose view and request does not reflect the view and desire of the House? I do not see how a coalition that has a signed agreement of support from parties making up a majority of the members of the House fails the test that the government is viable; quite the contrary. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the Bloc has agreed to "prop up" the coalition government -- they've expressed confidence in it, at least for the moment. So, barring defections this potential government could survive. That's rather different from the Meighen situation. Meighen did have a plurality but the Progressives were obviously not sympathetic to him. Whereas today we have a potential government which already has the expressed support of a majority of MPs. Meighen's potential government had the opposite. There was no way that a majority of MPs were going to support it. The Progressives were opposed to that sort of politics generally -- that's why they existed at all. And at that point they were clearly closer to the Liberals, even forming a partial alliance with them in the ensuing election.

Now I wouldn't say what the situation demands or what the GG should do. That's not for us to say. My only point was that this situation is not the same as 1926. So we can't just take a quote that somebody says about 1926 and apply it here. That's all that I was trying to say. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One situation that is appalling covered on Wikipedia (and, I suspect, on the wider web - the only news story mentioning it is this constitutional analysis in French: [9]) is 1939 in South Africa. PM J. B. M. Hertzog was defeated in the house on a motion of neutrality and requested a dissolution from Governor General Sir Patrick Duncan. Duncan first investigated as to whether Jan Smuts was able to form an alternative government (rather than assuming, as Byng did) and then denied a dissolution to Hertzog who was replaced by Smuts.

Whilst the limited references to it in the sources means we don't need to cover it in this article, it seems we do need something decent on this one on Wikipedia at some stage. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference there was I think Hertzog's United party was in a majority in parliament. Hertzog's request for a dissolution was clearly improper. It was designed solely to head-off a coup against him. An hypothetical analogy would be Chamberlain asking for a dissolution after the Norway debate... RodCrosby (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely because Chamberlain won the Norway Debate and the majority only slightly dipped (100 would have removed all doubt), the issue there was about forming a broader government to mobilise the country, not who could command a majority. (There's a growing argument amongst historians that Chamberlain wasn't brought down by the vote but by political maneouverings over the following 36 hours.) Hertzog had lost the vote but was in the position that there was a realignment in politics over the question of entry into the war. I'm not sure if the actual party made much difference but this one gets so little attention it's hard to be sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

not a perfect analogy I know, but one that came from the top of my head. Well I think that in the special circumstances of a serious war reverse, Chamberlain was toast if there was a significant dissident faction in his own party, whether or not he still had an arithmetic majority. In Hertzog's case, it was the majority of his own party who were against him (I think.) A similar refusal would have occurred if Maggie Thatcher had sought a dissolution after the first ballot in 1990 (or perhaps even shortly prior to this.) Avoiding the judgement of the House or of one's own party have been held to be "improper" uses of a dissolution. RodCrosby (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's going off topic, but there had been various "significant dissident factions" on various issues in the party for many years without them threatening the position of the leader, and a good chunk of the Norway rebels were the "same old names" (and the numbers are far closer than they're often reported, particularly on abstentions and "normal majorities"). I don't think any conclusions about the Westminster system can be drawn from the events of May 7-10 1940 because not only did events move quite quickly but also there were no difficult decisions thrown in the King's lap. The Hertzog situation is more complicated because the United Party was split on the issue and he had strong support on the issue from the opposition so a realignment of parties may have been a real possibility, as happened in Australia in 1916 (when Billy Hughes kept his premiership and left his party) or the UK in 1931 (similar with Ramsay MacDonald), with the PM leading the new combination to electoral victory. Indeed Hertzog's faction of United did wind up reunifying with the rump of the Nationalist Party. And traditionally a lot of dissolutions across the system were precisely because a PM was looking for a mandate on an issue that had failed in the House (e.g. Gladstone taking Home Rule to the country in 1886). But according to the DNB Duncan had to have several constitutional works flown across the Union that night so he could reach his decision. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All true, Tim, but the issue we are focussing on is the circumstances whereby the Sovereign might properly refuse a dissolution. If MacDonald in 1931 had not received overwhelming support, and had been left leading a "government" of just 13 MPs it's unlikely he would have been granted a dissolution... One of the critical points is the meaning within the Lascelles Principles of the words "another Prime Minister who could carry on his [the King's] Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons." Does "Government" mean *all* those things that governments normally do, or just a severely circumscribed set of objectives? Does "working majority" mean the *Government* [i.e. those parties represented in cabinet] has a majority sufficient for the "Government" to pass *any* legislation, or just to avoid defeat on a confidence motion in relation to the set of circumscribed actions dictated (or agreed) by another non-government party? If a "working majority", with all that implies, is not a sine qua non, why did Lascelles bother to mention it? RodCrosby (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps things here; but, had a Liberal-NDP coaliton government (with BQ suppport) been appointed in October 2008 & later defeated in a confidence vote; Parliament likely wouldn't have been dissolved, but rather the Conservatives would've been appointed government. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That really is getting into speculation territory. One could argue that both sides have proved unable to govern so a dissolution was the only solution, or one could find precedents for musical chair parliaments (I think Australia went through all minority governments from all three main parties at least once in one 1900s parliament) or so forth. It's impossible to say from here. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As Tim says, too speculative. Liberal/NDP might have only formed a government if,

i) singly or combined they had a majority

ii) singly one of them was largest party

iii) Tories refused a commission and Lib/NDP accepted

iv) Harper asked for another dissolution before meeting Parliament; he would have been refused and dismissed

v) Tories accepted a commission, but were defeated on the Speech from the Throne and Lib/NDP then accepted a commission

vi) some other configuration or outcome I've overlooked :)

What would have happened if a Liberal/NDP government subsequently fell is an entirely new can of worms, with a kaleidescope of possible outcomes.... Suffice to say, that whoever dreamt-up the Westminster model based it on the false assumption of perpetual alternating single-party majority governments.... RodCrosby (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unity Section

This section is currently not NPOV. It is very pro-Conservative and if it continues to remain a biased section should be deleated. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As the original version also suffers from a fundemental POV point, maybe deleting the entire section is the way to go.GoldDragon (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, for the reasons I've cited in the other discussions about this. Stop avoiding the issues and start addressing them. Moreover, if you're going to claim that certain statements have a POV, then illustrate it here. Note the statement, and why it's POV (statements which are simply critical of the Conservatives, with references supplied, doesn't make them POV). I've had the courtesy to list some of the POV statements you added to the article and the reason(s) why they aren't neutral or appropriate. You continue to avoid addressing those points. Making random counterclaims that other versions have a POV, without demonstrating why it should be considered POV, is insufficient and unproductive. Mindmatrix 18:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

A few days ago, User:Sunray decapitalised certain words, saying this followed the Manual of Style; these were mostly mentions of governor general, when not followed by any governor general's name. Though I've kept the rest of the article consistent with this, I've been wondering whether Sunray's is an accurate interpretation of the MoS. By my reading, when the term is being used to refer to a specific individual by their title, rather than just the office in general, it should be capitalised; in other words, "when a governor general is asked to pirouette, they stick out their tongue," would be correct, but should be, in another context, "when the Governor General was asked to pirouette, he stuck out his tongue." If we followed Sunray's take on the rule, we would use "the queen" instead of "the Queen", and "the house of commons" instead of "the House of Commons." No? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation. The specific person or title is capitalised, the name of the office is not. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is only a talkpage, but it's truly odd to see two co-respondents on a Canadian article talkpage using British spelling...how downright....colonialist.... ("Capitalize").Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for the -ise endings for Canada as they are often useful for dual-purpose mots-amis words. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's either the British colonial -ise or the American colonial -ize; either way, none are native to Canada. As we haven't adopted color, boro, honor, or neighborhood, it seems only natural that Canadians dispense with capitalize as well. And don't even get me started on pronunciations ("ruf" vs. roof, "meer" vs. mirror...)! --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your preferences and sentiments are irrelevant ot Wiki guidelines; both of you need to read {{Canadian-English}}. Canadian publishers and writers (and governments) have been using the -ize spelling, alongside the '"-our" spellings since the days when we were still part of the Empire and long before, it doesn't matter which of the colonies and territories that make up Canada you're talking about. Canadian English is a different system, a blend of colonialisms just like the country and the people(s), and it's older than both of you. And from here. There are well over 100 different official spelling systems for English, i.e. by nation - I know this directly as I was the head of the word-processing pool for a World Bank conference (no, not that one) and I had to memorize over 100 style guides and make sure the documents produced by each country were in that countries' preferred spelling system for English, even when English wasn't an official language; but a surprising many countries do, and there are for instance differences between Jamaican official English and Bahamanian official English, and between Sinagporean English and Malaysian English. Our intention anyway is to force the US and Britain to adopt Canadian English in the long run....our plans for world conquest and cultural domination have only begun (we already are Hollywood...)Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay but I believe we are talking about talk page spelling in which I spell by my preferences. I follow ENGVAR in articles. I will continue to spell and in a minor way promote -ise because, as I said, I believe it is useful in the Canadian bilingual context and, as Miesianiacal said, we either have to pick an Empire to copy or create our own. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Resignation of PM & dismissal of GG sections

I have removed both sections [10]. The first about the resignation of the PM had only one source and gave no kind of proof that this was ever considered as a serious option. Thus, it should not be mentioned here.

Fot the GG section, I am VERY against it's inclusion here. Nobody with any kind of power has ever said that her position is in any kind of danger, and to mention it here is giving undue weight to a theoretical situation and opinions of columnists. If Harper announces that he might consider the option, THEN it should be mentioned. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional scholars agree [dating back to 1931] that it is a possibility, and if one possibility is mentioned, so should others be. It's considered poor form to do the kind of large delete you have done without first discussing it, btw. RodCrosby (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And do those scholars have any kind of power at all? No. In my opinion, it should ONLY be mentioned if it is brought up as a serious option by an MP. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No they don't have any power, since most of them are dead... But their powerful ideas live on, and are followed on three continents... RodCrosby (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Shall we add Ignatieff?

Now that Michael Ignatieff has been chosen interim leader of the Liberal Party & thus Leader of the Opposition. Shall we add his image & name to the TopInfobox? GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Does he qualify as a "major paricipant" yet? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, to be honest. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is yet to be seen what Ignatieff's role will be in the coalition. Dion is obviously notable as the leader of the formed coalition. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. At this point, Ignatieff's ascension is part of the fallout of the drama, but he hasn't been a major player of it. Resolute 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has Ignatieff been added as a major participant in this event? He was a personage around the periphery, at best. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedents and commentary from antipodeans

I've removed from the article the claim (another) that "scholars are in agreement" over Byng's apparent error in not reappointing King after Meighen's defeat in 1926. The Australian source provided doesn't say at all that Byng made this mistake; in fact, it appears to say the opposite: "Byng cannot be criticised for verifying whether an alternative government could be formed, and as Meighen did in fact form a government which possessed the confidence of the House it was reasonable to grant him a dissolution when he was defeated, as it was then clear that no one could form an acceptable government in the existing House."

Yes, but Hamer says previous to this "It would be best to reappoint the original prime minister, permitting him to have whatever advantage that office gives during an election campaign. After all, he had been right about the need for a dissolution, and the head of state’s judgement had been wrong; and those other leaders who had tried and failed to form governments which had the confidence of the lower house had, by accepting the appointment, implicitly agreed that the House should not be dissolved." What he seems to be saying is it was reasonable to grant Meighen a dissolution (a dissolution was now inevitable, since no government could be formed from the current House), but it would be wise in such circumstances to reappoint the former PM (King in this example) for the reasons stated. Hardie Boys seems to follow the same logic. RodCrosby (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that part now. However, it does seem to contradict his other words; "as Meighen did in fact form a government which possessed the confidence of the House it was reasonable to grant him a dissolution when he was defeated" seems quite unambiguous to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also, "The King and His Dominion Governors", by Herbert Vere Evatt, 1936, p.62, although Evatt implies that Meighen should not have been granted a dissolution, but Mackenzie King re-appointed on the assumption he would repeat his original request for a dissolution. But three sources agree, in any event, that King should have been re-appointed, and that is all I said in the article. RodCrosby (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bogdanor [1997, p159] also agrees with Evatt, so that's four who support my point. RodCrosby (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What one of the sources says is obviously debatable. Regardless, before we discuss who said what, we should decide whether or not what was said is even relevant to the article's subject, which is the question I raised below. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The other source is a speech by a former Governor-General of New Zealand, and it does say Byng should have re-appointed King as prime minister. However, I wonder what relevance that has to the section; the relevant precedents are those relating to a refusal of dissolution, not the reappointment of a PM. Am I missing something? --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just trying to show that the previous decision was and still is controversial. The original wording of the section implied Jean would simply follow Byng's actions to the letter, which obviously is a contentious assertion. And thinking ahead, if the coalition is appointed, then falls, this point would imply Harper should have the seals of office returned to him for the election campaign. So it's a discussion of the potential ramifications of denying Harper a dissolution. RodCrosby (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The desire is understandable, but it seems to me that we'd be getting ahead of ourselves in mentioning hypotheticals about what took place after the fall of the Meighen government; such would only be relevant had Dion already been appointed as prime minister and then himself lost the confidence of the house. Surely there's differing opinion out there on the actual refusal of dissolution, which is all that's pertinent here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Byng's decision to desolve Parliament, at Prime Minister Meighen's request (after the Meighen minority government was defeated)? is that what you're mentioning? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider Byng's 1926 decision & Jean possible 2009 decision. We must remember, Meighen's (old) Conservatives were the plural party in that Parliament. Just like Harper's Conservatives are the plural party in this Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that in the article. Each crisis much be judged on all the available facts, and not superficial or selective application of supposed precedents. RodCrosby (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Soo, are we in agreement to hold back on including this stuff, until January 27, 2009? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion, yes. Though the info could go in at the King-Byng article in the meantime; it's quite valuable. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's agreeable. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

checked [Bogdanor, 1997, page 159] and he says (based on a conversation between Meighen and Churchill) that Meighen in fact advised Byng to send for King again (!), and King expected this too. RodCrosby (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Governor General Jean's future?

Whoa there, RodCrosby. We're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, yea; that last addition was definitely not Wikosher. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. History show these things have can unfortunate consequences for the one making the decision. It's not meant as a personal attack on Jean. RodCrosby (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that Jean won't be effected either way, by whatever decision she makes after January 27, 2009 (again, assuming the Harper government faces & looses a confidence vote). GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Australian situation. Governor General John Kerr fired Prime Minister Whitlam without warning. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, speculations are irrelevant. The point is that the claims are unsourced, and, as such, read as nothing but the personal opinions of RodCrosby. As I'm sure we're all aware, our personal feelings are not permitted as content in articles. Certain users should also be aware that removing maintenance tags is a bad habit; just beacause the inline tags don't explicitly state, as the larger boiler plate ones do, that they should not be removed until discussion is complete doesn't mean they shouldn't fall under the same guideline.

(To GD: Governor General John Kerry!?)--Miesianiacal (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I had a republican momment (or was it a Democratic momment). GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said "may", and "if .. controversial." However you dress it up, her future is on the line just as much as Harper's or anyone elses. If we're going to mention the possibility of her being dismissed by Harper, we should also mention the possibility of her being engulfed by the fallout of a controversial decision, the fate which befell both GGs in the cited Canadian and Australian precedents. RodCrosby (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should wait until January 26, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, why not just scrap the article? There is no crisis. There is no dispute. All is well. RodCrosby (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Those precedent parts you've added, shouldn't be deleted but rather hidden (in case they're needed, after Jan 27, 2009). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]There are infinite possibilities for what the future may hold for Jean; shall we list them all? Citing precedent is not the same as predicting the future. I think this case is an example of just why WP:CRYSTAL exists. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is so much more about "precedent" that I could add. I think I have been rather restrained. A bullet point about the consequences for Jean of getting it wrong is reasonable, imho. We can discuss the precise wording, but it's as likely an outcome as any of the other "speculations" listed in the article. I'll get some sources.... RodCrosby (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I reckon this article will go through lots of changes, until things in Ottawa settle. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that precedents are being looked at amid assumptions and speculations; it's hard to say Kerr is a precedent that demonstrates what could happen to Jean should she "get it wrong" when there's no definite proof that Kerr did indeed get it wrong, nor that he was ever "hounded from office" (he was G-G for another two years). There's also nothing to say that Byng's replacement at the end of 1926 was punnishment for his decisions as viceroy. Yet, there is currently a small paragraph in the article that is worded in such a way as to express the opposite, and then go on to use these particular interpretations of history as grounds on which to say what could happen to Jean should she have poor judgement when making a choice she's yet to be presented with. All together that's guessing what might happen should something else happen because still something else happened, based on one interpretation of what happened before!

My last edit (which I reverted) shows what I think is a possible solution: simply state what happened to those governors general after they acted in the precedents we've pointed to, and nothing more. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it guys. What do you think? RodCrosby (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to speculate on Michelle Jean's future as Governor General. There's every possibility, that the Liberals might approve of the 2009 (Conservative) Budget & choose not to put forward a confidence motion. In that scenerio, Michelle Jean won't have to do anything. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

While your efforts to alter it are appreciated, your most recent work still has a number of problems:

1. "In any event" is editorialising;
2. it assumes Kerr's and Byng's decisions were wrong;
3. it infers Byng was removed from office against his will;
4. it infers Kerr was forced from office;
5. it infers 3 and 4 were punnishment for having done 2;
6. it is in the wrong section.

I still maintain the redundant "personal consequences" section should be dropped, and the remainder split, as I did here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Miesianiacal. Since the situations with Kerr and Byng are in the article, what happened to these two governors general seems to fit in it as well. However drawing conclusions or parallels or even vague links to what might possibly happen to GG M. Jean strikes me as wild speculation. CBHA (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've de-personalised it. And I don't quite see the distinction you're making. If we can "speculate" on bad outcomes for Harper based on the GG's hypothetical actions, and speculate the fact the GG could be hypothetically sacked, what's wrong with speculating hypothetical negative outcomes for the GG, based on what happened to previous GGs? Or does she have some special right to be treated with kid-gloves? RodCrosby (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until January 2009 & see what Jean will do if the Harper government is defeated. Then wait & see what the re-action to her decision will be. It's only another 6 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But you don't answer the question "Then why talk about any of this situation until it's actually happened?" RodCrosby (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm pooped out. If ya wanna mention what might happen to Michelle Jean in the coming weeks, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it more or less as it stands, as a cautionary note, until something actually happens. RodCrosby (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Rod, my above points remain unaddressed by you. Could you do so, please? --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a moot point to respond now since Scorpion0422 has deleted the lot. Perhaps an admin could issue him with some kind of friendly warning? RodCrosby (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Back from my slumber) Howabout we leave it until after January 27, 2009. That way, there's nothing to fight about. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As I explained below, I removed the section because it seems to be based solely on the speculation of some columnists and political commentators. Now, if a MP has publicly stated that the option should be considered, THEN it should be mentioned, but otherwise it's just giving undue weight to a theoretical situation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"columnists and political commentators" And constitutional scholars on three continents dating back to 1931.... I suggest we must now delete all hypothetical constitutional possibilities, including dissolution, coalition, etc and leave readers entirely in the dark until something happens... This is just silly. Btw, MPs don't need to suggest anything for it to remain a possibility. The GG has reserve powers for when MPs can't agree on what to do next... And while the scenarios mentioned have appeared in columns and from the mouths of political commentators [from where else are they supposed to spring?] almost all, as far as I can see, have been supported by some contemporary Canadian scholar. Your attitude seems most un-encyclopaedic, deleting opinions you don't like or don't comprehend... RodCrosby (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So we should add every single hypothetical situation that has been mentioned by a columnist or scholar? I'm not going to repeat things I've already said, nobody with any power has brought this situation up, so it shouldn't be mentioned. It's basically sensationalism, which is also unencyclopedic. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

can you go off and delete the article reserve powers also, since it must be sensationalist. In fact there aren't that many reserve powers pertaining to the current Canadian situation [3 or 4?], plus the possibility of replacing the GG on ministerial advice, yet you and only you are to be the arbiter of what is "sensationalism." Gough Whitlam and Mackenzie King probably thought what happened to them was sensationalist too.... RodCrosby (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not saying that the powers do not exist. What I am saying is that in this case, there is no proof that anyone with power is even considering using them which is why it should not be mentioned. Having a large section discussing the possible dismissal of the GG when nobody who can do it has publicly mentioned that they are considering it is undue weight. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this simply isn't the appropriate location for the info. I think most of it is worthwhile, and there are certainly enough reliable sources supporting it, but I do agree that speculations do not have a place here, unless they have a very good chance of actually happening. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect proof of any particular outcome (from a very limited set of possibilities) before it actually occurs? Where is the proof there will be a coalition? Where is the proof there will be a dissolution? Where was the proof Harper would nominate 18 Senators? Where is the proof Harper will still be PM tomorrow? What is the purpose of this article at all? It's not as if I'm "speculating" that Elvis will crash-land a UFO onto the head of the Loch Ness Monster, and as a consequence Harper will be saved. I've tried to rigorously cover the very limited set of possibilities (some may or may not be more likely than any other, but that is entirely POV, and something I have avoided giving in the article, although I have expressed my POV on the talk page). Now half of them have been deleted, simply because one person doesn't like the sound of them RodCrosby (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that "firing" the Governor General would raise a HUGE outcry, and that the political leaders likely to be involved are at least smart enough to figure that out, and smart enough not to try. CBHA (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your POV, and I may not even disagree with you, but is that a reason to drop it, being one of perhaps just four possibilities? Surely it should be included, with independent sources opining on its likelihood? RodCrosby (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

btw, if you are intent on suppressing facts you ought to at least try and get your story straight. You need to alter "three possible actions" to "two possible actions" in the preamble to 2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#The_role_of_the_Governor_General. Perhaps you might even get the government you deserve! RodCrosby (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm not sure speculation can be taken as fact. However, I am with you, Rod, on the reinstatement of the two sections in question, though perhaps stripped of excess and presented differently; though these were not likely options (and the PM section said as much), they were options none-the-less. We can then get back to the repercussions of a bad vice-regal decision after this little issue has been resolved. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

They remain facts, however remote in their likely application, in so far as they remain reserve powers. Whitlam and King may have thought them remote and speculative too, until they found themselves on the wrong end of them..... RodCrosby (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I don't believe anyone is disputing what the reserve powers are, only the way in which we present how they may have been used. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Supply Support?

In this edit a few days ago,

[[11]]

this wording was created:

"By contrast, Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, was said to be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing power with the NDP with supply support by the Bloc Québécois."

Perhaps "supply support" may be a technical term that applies, but:

a) it is not a generally understood term

b) it is too narrow here. The wording of the three-party accord involves much broader support from the Bloc Quebecois than just supply bills.

Accordingly, I have changed the wording. CBHA (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the BQ has agreed to support a Liberal/NDP coalition government 'til June 2010 (unless accord is re-newed by then), on any confidence motions or confidence related votes. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Supply support" and other terms maybe should have wiktionary entries...(as I understand it, it means support on supply bills; defeat on supply bills predicates a subsequent non-confidence motion).Skookum1 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Senate appointments

The appointment of senators during prorogation should be added here... Is that even proper? If the PM can't pass supply, doesn't have confidence of the House, and the session is prorogued, doesn't this lead to a constitutional crisis? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No to the last question, yes to the first (like it or not) Skookum1 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV image

I took out a blatantly anti-coalition image iwth a "Your Vote doesn't Count" propaganda message on the sign pointedly featured in it; the image was at teh start of a section which had nothing to do with protests but with "Government response". Don't know when it was put in, but s*H*i*T of this kind is what makes the activities of Tory activists on this page so despicable. And don't posture that it's "just an image" or "well, provide one from the other side". Adding pointedly POV material of this kind is rank politicking, and shoudl be kept to the rabble-rousing websites; it does NOT belong in a wikipedia article. "Assume good faith" only applies when there is evidence of good faith, and no reason for doubt; there's LOTS of reason for doubt here, and in this case the propaganda effect - and intent - was very blatant. This is not an advertising page for anti-Coalition forces, though certainly some have tried to make it so...Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Conservative activist, but I enjoyed the image. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Which speaks only to your political innocence and manipulability.Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The image helped show the emotion of the current parliamentary dispute. It's too bad it was't balanced with a pro-coalition image of equal emotion. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's too bad isn't it? If you enjoyed it so much, why didn't you' go find a pro-coalition one that you enjoyed just as much. And made sure both were in the appropriate section, not somewhere that had nothing to do with "government response". As for votes not counting, that's how 62% of the population feels about the way the Harper government behaves as if we'd voted for them. You're defending the indefensible by saying "too bad"....which is a mark of callousness or, again, innocence. Take your pick.Skookum1 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::62% against the Conservatives; a higher percentage against the Liberals & an even higher percentage against the New Democrats. As for find images? I'm too lazy & don't know how to insert them anyways. Anyways, I've no intentions of restoring the 'pro-conservative' image. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't seeking a conflict here. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)