When will the BC Election be called?

[testicles]

It is a LOT more likely Liberal MLA's will miss votes.
Does Rich Coleman look healthy to anyone? Or John Martin, Linda Reid, Peter Milobar?

Ralph Sultan is 81, for gawd's sake.

Sam Sullivan is frail at the best of times.

They all also like to travel (usually on the public's dime).

Some good points.

 

[MissingOne]

... the LG will Propagate the house.

"Propagate" the house? Really?

 

[thodisipagal]

Yes. When the house is called back after an election by the Leader of the political party with the most seats (Christie Clark) the first order of business is to elect a Speaker. Nothing else can be done until a Speaker is elected. The clerk of the legislative assembly runs the election and counts the votes. No Speaker = no business can be done. If no MLA wishes to be Speaker for Christie Clark, John Horgan has his chance to form a government if he can find a MLA that will serve as Speaker. If no MLA wishes to be Speaker for John Horgan either, the LG will Propagate the house. Like the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown. (in this case the LG of BC)

The LG will then ask Christie Clark and John Horgan if any negotiations can result in a government. If the answer is NO, a BC Election will be called.

There is a lot of talk about the NDP providing a Speaker who will then vote with the NDP and Greens to topple the government. Christie Clark is permitted to ask the LG for a BC Election if that happens and she will most likely have that request granted.

The NDP and Greens could elect an NDP Speaker if Christie Clark can't find a Speaker and John Horgan is offered a chance to form a government. In that case the NDP Speaker is bound by convention to vote to preserve the government and vote for the Throne Speech and Budget.

checked to see if I spelled Prorogation correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada


Effectively, Christie remains the Premier and her Cabinet Ministers remain Cabinet Ministers until the MLAs are recalled to the house. At that point, Christie and her Cabinet Ministers become regular MLAs until the Speaker is elected and the LG reads the Throne Speech.

With open mind, I thought you were going to say something nobody knew. And thought you were going to say something that is accurate. You did neither.

I'll respond point by point.

1) Christy Clark will call the house but not because she's the leader of the party with plurality of seats. In a hung legislature, with no party with a majority, the person who gets to call the house is not because of plurality but because of his/her continuing position as the premier. In that capacity, Clark will call the house. Had BCLibs secured less seats that NDP and neither party still had a majority, Clark, if she chooses not to resign, would still call the house because of her position as premier serving at the pleasure of the LG.

2) When house returns, most likely Linda Reid will return as Speaker. But if she chooses not to be considered for speaker's position, then an MLA from NDP or Green Party would be elected Speaker. Horgan would ask one of his caucus colleagues to stand in the election for Speaker. For him, it makes no difference for either defeating a Throne Speech or Budget Speech or passing a Throne Speech or Budget Speech. Because a Speaker can break the tie either in favor of the government or against it. There is no law that requires the Speaker to vote in favor of the government. Regardless of which party offers the Speaker, Clark will be defeated in a vote of non-confidence.

3) When Clark is defeated, Horgan can claim the premiership. LG will have no other option but to grant that claim because he has 44 seat majority support.

4) I don't know where you get this idea that if the Speaker from NDP votes against the Throne Speech Clark is permitted to ask the LG for a new election. Speaker can vote his/her conscience; a Speaker is not required by any law to be a rubber stamp for the government. Forget about Clark asking LG for a new election; Horgan has majority support in New legislature. Had he not, then only could Clark ask for a new election.

 

[thodisipagal]

Mike de Jong just informed the office of the speaker that the Legislature will be recalled June 22. First order of business will be to elect Speaker.

Linda Reid today has neither confirmed nor denied that she will be a candidate for speaker when she was asked about her future in legislature.

 

[BaconNeggs]

There will be another Provincial election in less than a year.
Christy is still the Premier and is going to make it as hard as possible on the other two.
She will work harder and smarter on the next election and win majority.
Those are my predictions.

 

[badbadboy]

Christie will call the house back, lose a confidence vote and resign as premier. The NDP and Green marriage made in hell will have a chance to govern. Their throne speech will pass by one vote.

They will govern as long as they can. If the Liberals are smart, Christy will step down as leader (but I think she's too stubborn/selfish to do that) and have a fast leadership convention in the fall. Kevin Falcon or someone else not tainted by working with her should win. Then, given the razor thin margin, either the greens and NDP have a falling out, or someone gets sick/has to go out of town/some other mess up happens and the Liberals will vote down the government in the fall or spring, and bam, next election.

In the meantime, the damage they do will hopefully be minimal, but make no mistake, this coalition will mean deficits (NDP lied straight up about that), higher taxes for many (not just the rich) and lots of broken promises. They are already backing away from some of them. Road/bridge tolls will be one, the Greens want them, but the NDP promised to cut them, let's see who wins the day. My bet is the NDP caves and leaves them in place.

I actually paid the $5 fee to join the Liberal party so I could vote for Kevin Falcon and vote against Christy. Not so much that I liked Falcon but more of my dislike of Christy. There were and still are a large group of Liberals who wanted Christy to go and be replaced by Falcon. He would be a good leader IMO.

 

[rlock]

I actually paid the $5 fee to join the Liberal party so I could vote for Kevin Falcon and vote against Christie. Not so much that I liked Falcon but more of my dislike of Christy. There were and still are a large group of Liberals who wanted Christy to go and be replaced by Falcon. He would be a good leader IMO.

I actually thought - at the time - that Falcon was worse. Perhaps I'd still be right about that, but it's not one of those things you can tell for sure. It's a "What if ... ?"

 

[alcxd]

Edit: Can't see how cancelling bridge tolls will solve anything. Whether general revenues or tolls pay for the bridge, they all come from the same tax pool. Personally I like the idea because it's more user pay and there is an option around it (albeit slow). I can see why taxes are higher here though. All this bridge and tunnel shit must cost a huge fortune.

So if this happens, does that mean all us islanders get to ride the Ferrys for free. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander ! Makes no sense to me that I might have to pay for a bridge that I will probably never use in my lifetime. It was just a ploy to get Vancouver Voters. Lets see if it really happens.

 

[rlock]

I'm not a fan of any politician and haven't really paid much attention to BC politics, but Clark strikes me as "Hillary Clinton North". She's cold, calculating and power hungry so she'll do what it takes to get her majority. She should have resigned.

Edit: Can't see how cancelling bridge tolls will solve anything. Whether general revenues or tolls pay for the bridge, they all come from the same tax pool. Personally I like the idea because it's more user pay and there is an option around it (albeit slow). I can see why taxes are higher here though. All this bridge and tunnel shit must cost a huge fortune.

So if this happens, does that mean all us islanders get to ride the Ferrys for free. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander ! Makes no sense to me that I might have to pay for a bridge that I will probably never use in my lifetime. It was just a ploy to get Vancouver Voters. Lets see if it really happens.

The Greens and the NDP do not agree on the tolls.

Personally, I think the Greens have the right idea; they wanted tolls - but a smarter more widespread kind, not just on two/new bridges (which was the big mistake of the BC Libs).

The NDP promise to do away with them was good campaigning, but shitty policy. Now they will have to do this little dance where they try to un-say what they already said, without getting voters angry at them.

Popular? No, it makes anyone's skin crawl if they live on the other side of a bridge. But on the other hand, if the bridges are not maintained or improved, how fucked will they be then?

Tolls are the best way to pay for all that infrastructure, and here's another reason why:

"Mobility pricing" - this is the silly idea the council of mayors want to initiate for Translink. Basically, everyone in Metro Vancouver would have a transponder on their car, and pay some sort of "distance-based pricing" and/or "congestion charge" as they drive around. But why it is their idea such bullshit?

First of all, we already pay a distance-based fee when we drive - it's called fuel taxes (there are several). The further you drive, the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay, the more they earn for their coffers. If they feel the revenue they are earning is not enough, they can always just raise those gas taxes.

Second, if the issue is traffic congestion, then why set up some new version of an area entry charge, when we have a natural set of gates or choke points all over the region? Tolled bridges would be easy to set up both increase revenue, and reduce congestion by improving the efficiency of peoples' vehicle trips. The infrastructure already exists now; it would require only expansion, not a whole new system with a whole new set of startup costs.

Plus, the toll system could be integrated with that of commercial vehicle & taxi licensing (those who must drive as work, not just drive to work), so they do not get brutalized by being charged too much per workday. If they were smart about this, choosing the right tolls for the right bridges, and did not try to gouge people, then it would work very well.

So you can see why "mobility pricing" is really just a stupid gimmick - in part, it's because the Mayors' Council wants a system that delivers revenues to only themselves (Translink, not the provincial or federal government) , and in part it is because they are politically afraid of the words "tax" and "toll".
It's absurd - the public does not care who runs the transportation system as long as it's meeting their needs fairly and efficiently. This shit costs money, and voters know it.

The provincial government can make or break Translink with a single legislative act; they certainly have the power to deal with this smartly if they want to. But do they have the will to do what needs to be done? So far from the BC Liberals, NDP, and the municipal leaders, I'd say no. The Greens are the smallest party in the Legislature, but I appreciate that they have spoken the hard truths on this issue.

 

[deathreborn]

mobility pricing will not fly. no provincial government will support it as it will guarantee they lose the next election. if the mayors try and ram it through they can kiss re-election goodbye as well. how quickly they forget that their little transit referendum 2 years ago was soundly defeated. getting tired of this crummy city and everyone trying to reach into my pocket and take my money. no other city in north america has mobility pricing. some american cities have tolls on certain highways but they also have free alternatives and interstates being federal are not allowed to be tolled. it seems the mayors are trying to punish us for poor infrastructure planning. making every friggen major road two lanes each way only was completely nearsighted. and they wonder why there is congestion. all main arteries should be a least 3 lanes each way.

 

[sdw]

What's that Andrew? http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-horgan-downplays-division-with-gabby-weaver NDP said Reid or Sullivan would be Speaker? I was wondering why both Reid and Sullivan were made Cabinet Ministers by Christie.

All by way of correcting a storyline initiated by Weaver himself:

“The NDP essentially made us understand that they had been in conversation with some B.C. Liberals and that it would be no problem for them to find a Speaker from within the B.C. Liberal ranks,” Weaver told The Province columnist Mike Smyth. “A bunch of names were mentioned. Sam (Sullivan) and Linda (Reid) were the two obvious ones.” This on the day after those two Liberals were promoted to cabinet by Premier Christy Clark.

Weaver further insinuated that the NDP failure to deliver a Liberal to serve as Speaker might put the whole partnership at risk.

“Would it be a problem with our agreement? It would certainly make us pause and reflect upon the conditions of our agreement being met,” he said with a hint of betrayal. “Certainty is very important to us. Certainty and the agreement come hand-in-hand with there being a Speaker coming from the Liberals.”

I wonder why Andrew Weaver is feeling betrayed? After all, he had a deal with the Liberals on the Saturday and then announced a deal with the NDP on the Sunday. I wonder who he will be voting with on Thursday June 22nd?

 

[Man Mountain]

What's that Andrew? http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-horgan-downplays-division-with-gabby-weaver NDP said Reid or Sullivan would be Speaker? I was wondering why both Reid and Sullivan were made Cabinet Ministers by Christie.



I wonder why Andrew Weaver is feeling betrayed? After all, he had a deal with the Liberals on the Saturday and then announced a deal with the NDP on the Sunday. I wonder who he will be voting with on Thursday June 22nd?

I guess you didn't see their press conference this afternoon:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3528392/s...and-greens-as-speaker-position-remains-empty/

 

[sdw]

ipolitics has an article on Christy Clark not being a quitter and having a plan to survive. http://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/16/think-christy-clarks-through-she-doesnt/

Don’t think for a second that it’s Christy Clark’s nature to go quietly into the night. In response, the B.C. NDP and Greens may have no choice other than to forge a pact to work together in a snap election.

During the press conference in which Christy Clark responded to the agreement between the BC NDP and Greens to cooperate in a minority government, TV cameras caught a glimpse of her speaking notes. The biggest word written on the page was “humble”; apparently she was reminding herself to dial down her signature scrappiness and appear gracious.

Clark also went on to say she would not resign, but would respect the process by a drafting a throne speech and holding a confidence vote — and not right away, either, but a few leisurely weeks later. Then, she named a cabinet that included rumoured candidates for the Speaker’s job, thereby taking them out of contention. With a one-vote difference between Clark’s Liberals and the ‘GreeNDP’ alliance, the question of who will put up the traditionally neutral Speaker has emerged as a key one.

All of this has been done with cold calculation. After losing the vote on the throne speech, an apparently humble and gracious Clark could go to B.C. Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon and claim there isn’t enough stability in the legislature for any party and request a new election. This would be for ‘the good of the people’, of course.

 

[Har-Don]

I've read many political blogs and most political news stories but almost all are going under the assumption that the Green Party will be unified with their votes. I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that the Green Party doesn't have a party whip as part of a pledge in 2013. I know a few people who voted Green because of this policy. Without a party whip MLAs are free to vote that best suits their constituents and not necessarily as their leader dictates. That means the Green MLAs are theoretically capable of voting differently on different issues and can't be ordered to vote via party rule.

So either the Green Party will have to institute a party whip or it's possible one of the Green MLAs could vote with the Liberals on a particular issue. Without a party whip the true balance of power doesn't solely reside with Andrew Weaver, it is equally shared with Sonia Furstenau and Adam Olsen. Either one could prop up the Liberal government if they can justify it to their constituents. In theory.

Or more likely the Greens will install a party whip and be like the other political parties. Or with a 3 member team they could have an unofficial party whip. Either way there will be a lot of political fancy footwork being done behind the scenes. Should make for interesting times. I can't see how this thing lasts more than a year.

 

[rlock]

Christy Clark has in the last few days said she will 1) eliminate corporate & union donations to political parties, 2) increase welfare, and 3) give a lot more money to child care. Basically, her way to trying to cling to power is to not be herself anymore, and pretend like her party suddenly likes every policy idea it formerly hated. She just can't help herself - she is a shameless liar, smiling for the cameras as she announces her sudden repentance.

:drama: :suspicious:

I've read many political blogs and most political news stories but almost all are going under the assumption that the Green Party will be unified with their votes. I haven't seen anyone bring up the fact that the Green Party doesn't have a party whip as part of a pledge in 2013. I know a few people who voted Green because of this policy. Without a party whip MLAs are free to vote that best suits their constituents and not necessarily as their leader dictates. That means the Green MLAs are theoretically capable of voting differently on different issues and can't be ordered to vote via party rule.

So either the Green Party will have to institute a party whip or it's possible one of the Green MLAs could vote with the Liberals on a particular issue. Without a party whip the true balance of power doesn't solely reside with Andrew Weaver, it is equally shared with Sonia Furstenau and Adam Olsen. Either one could prop up the Liberal government if they can justify it to their constituents. In theory.

Or more likely the Greens will install a party whip and be like the other political parties. Or with a 3 member team they could have an unofficial party whip. Either way there will be a lot of political fancy footwork being done behind the scenes. Should make for interesting times. I can't see how this thing lasts more than a year.

Well, considering the situation, they may not like having a whipped votes, but there will have to be one in effect - any vote goes AWOL or switches without warning, it can pull the whole government down. Both the Lib and NDP members as well will not dare miss a single vote, or go rogue on anything. :whip:

The Greens will probably not be too hard to manage, with just 3 people. And on most issues with the NDP, they will no doubt be giving advance warning on all issue votes. If the votes just aren't there, they cannot proceed. Hints of this have already happened, with the NDP wanting to switch from secret ballots to card-signing for union certification, but the Greens do not agree with doing that, so I do not think the NDP can bring that measure in.

 

[sdw]

Christy Clark has in the last few days said she will 1) eliminate corporate & union donations to political parties, 2) increase welfare, and 3) give a lot more money to child care. Basically, her way to trying to cling to power is to not be herself anymore, and pretend like her party suddenly likes every policy idea it formerly hated. She just can't help herself - she is a shameless liar, smiling for the cameras as she announces her sudden repentance.

:drama: :suspicious:





Well, considering the situation, they may not like having a whipped votes, but there will have to be one in effect - any vote goes AWOL or switches without warning, it can pull the whole government down. Both the Lib and NDP members as well will not dare miss a single vote, or go rogue on anything. :whip:

The Greens will probably not be too hard to manage, with just 3 people. And on most issues with the NDP, they will no doubt be giving advance warning on all issue votes. If the votes just aren't there, they cannot proceed. Hints of this have already happened, with the NDP wanting to switch from secret ballots to card-signing for union certification, but the Greens do not agree with doing that, so I do not think the NDP can bring that measure in.

I think that Christie's plan is for the Greens to vote for the Throne Speech. They want her promise on political donations. I think that people are going to be surprised by who checked the (I will agree to be Speaker) check box on the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly's form. Two reasons that I think the person is a NDP MLA: 1. The NDP caucus knows who John Horgan has selected for Cabinet. 2. Anyone who watched Joy MacPhail take out Glen Clark knows that the NDP just can't stand having the "wrong person" as leader when they approach being government. Anyone who thinks that the take out of Glen Clark was an isolated case is forgetting the take out of Mike Harcourt.

The Greens will support new rules on political donations, the increase in welfare rates and additional resources for MLAs.

Christie will probably introduce the Budget late August or early September. The Budget will be designed to be unacceptable to the Greens and NDP because Christie wants an election. The Throne Speech is just her first election pamphlet.

 

[rlock]

I think that Christie's plan is for the Greens to vote for the Throne Speech. They want her promise on political donations. I think that people are going to be surprised by who checked the (I will agree to be Speaker) check box on the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly's form. Two reasons that I think the person is a NDP MLA: 1. The NDP caucus knows who John Horgan has selected for Cabinet. 2. Anyone who watched Joy MacPhail take out Glen Clark knows that the NDP just can't stand having the "wrong person" as leader when they approach being government. Anyone who thinks that the take out of Glen Clark was an isolated case is forgetting the take out of Mike Harcourt.

The Greens will support new rules on political donations, the increase in welfare rates and additional resources for MLAs.

Christie will probably introduce the Budget late August or early September. The Budget will be designed to be unacceptable to the Greens and NDP because Christie wants an election. The Throne Speech is just her first election pamphlet.

Granted, the Greens are more of a "mission-oriented" party - they care about accomplishing specific things, not just winning the game. Although a last effort at diverting Green support may be Clark's plan, I do not think the Greens will go for it.

Why would they be tempted to side with the BC Libs who - even if desperate - only might do these things, versus the NDP would definitely. (It's a bit like someone at a Ford dealership offering to sell you a new Mercedes. Why not just go to the Mercedes dealer?)
They can get all those things and more, by dropping the guillotine on Clark and her government.

If hypothetically Clark did get such cooperation from the Greens, she would then employ obfuscation, delay, and watering down on everything she has promised them. In the meantime, the Site C dam construction keeps rolling along, and in September, the Kinder Morgan pipeline construction actually starts (making it that much harder to stop). What could the Greens do then? Only pull the plug and an election would result. The electorate would be mad at their failure to get anything, and the BC Libs have more than enough resources to fight another campaign.

Too big a risk for the Greens, just to find out if Corrupt Christy has actually "seen the light".

 

[sdw]

Granted, the Greens are more of a "mission-oriented" party - they care about accomplishing specific things, not just winning the game. Although a last effort at diverting Green support may be Clark's plan, I do not think the Greens will go for it.

Why would they be tempted to side with the BC Libs who - even if desperate - only might do these things, versus the NDP would definitely. (It's a bit like someone at a Ford dealership offering to sell you a new Mercedes. Why not just go to the Mercedes dealer?)
They can get all those things and more, by dropping the guillotine on Clark and her government.

If hypothetically Clark did get such cooperation from the Greens, she would then employ obfuscation, delay, and watering down on everything she has promised them. In the meantime, the Site C dam construction keeps rolling along, and in September, the Kinder Morgan pipeline construction actually starts (making it that much harder to stop). What could the Greens do then? Only pull the plug and an election would result. The electorate would be mad at their failure to get anything, and the BC Libs have more than enough resources to fight another campaign.

Too big a risk for the Greens, just to find out if Corrupt Christy has actually "seen the light".

Today Christie upped her chances by adding a referendum on Electoral Reform to the Throne Speech.

I was surprised to see Liberal Steve Thompson resign his Cabinet post in order to become Speaker. Maybe now that he is fully vested in the pension by having won three terms, he's thinking retirement before the next election.

The Liberals have a fund raising letter that was tweeted today:

No doubt that Christie has a plan that leads to an election.

 

[sdw]

Mike Smyth has an article on what he thinks Christy is up to, I agree with him. The problem, for Christy, is that Lt-Gov Guichon may or may not buy what Christy is selling.

Making the Greens vote against legislation that they said they would support a few days ago is another plank in Christy's election platform.

Mike Smyth's article: http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-ndp-greens-close-in-on-christy-clarks-liberals

It was an all-too-clever attempt by Christy Clark to break up the political bromance between the two guys who want to steal her throne.

But NDP Leader John Horgan and Green party Leader Andrew Weaver were having none of it.

Horgan and Weaver have vowed to bring down Clark’s minority Liberal government at the first opportunity, which is shaping up to be this Thursday. That means Clark still has a few days left as premier, and the Liberals are trying every trick in the book to push back the enemies at their gate.

On Monday, the Liberals introduced two bills: One would have banned corporate and union donations to political parties, and the other would have recognized the three-member Green party as an official party in the legislature. The NDP and Greens support both measures in principle.

But there was no way they were going to let Clark’s Liberals score a last-minute goal before the game is over. They didn’t rise to the bait. Both bills were defeated on first reading by a vote of 44-42. The first-reading defeat is significant, since all bills traditionally pass first reading. That protocol got tossed out the window as both bills died a quick death.

The Liberals, though, acted like they scored a win over their opponents: they made them look silly by forcing them to vote against things they claim to support.

But I think Clark looks the foolish one here by playing procedural games and delaying a non-confidence vote that the Liberals will also surely lose. That will force Clark to resign. Then Judith Guichon, the lieutenant-governor, will likely call on Horgan to form a government.

But Clark is clearly hoping Guichon looks at the razor-close standings in the legislature and calls a snap election instead. Yes, Clark has said “no one wants an election” and she said she won’t ask Guichon to call one. But a quick election appears to be Clark’s best hope to stay in power. She doesn’t dare ask Guichon to call it, though, because any party seen as forcing an election risks being punished by voters.

Instead, Clark is saying she won’t offer Guichon any advice at all. She will let Guichon make up her own mind, hope she calls an election on her own and then try to blame the NDP for it.

I think that’s a big reason for the Liberals’ bizarre throne speech last week, which was close to a carbon copy of the NDP’s campaign platform.

If the Clark government is defeated, and Guichon surprises everyone by calling an election, Clark will tell voters: “We offered the NDP the things they wanted in a throne speech, but they voted it down anyway and forced an election.”

If all this sounds like an overly complicated plan for Clark to somehow cling to power, you’re right. I don’t think it’s going to work. Clark would have been smarter to forget the tricks, take her defeat with some dignity and wait for the NDP-Green government to mess up and fail.

Instead, she looks like she is playing games while important government files are ignored. And by lurching to the left with an NDP “clone speech,” she risks losing support to the fringe B.C. Conservative party.

Clark may have some more tricks up her sleeve. But the end is near.

msmyth@postmedia.com

twitter.com/MikeSmythNews

Lt.-Gov. Guichon faces decision with few precedents assuming Liberals fall http://www.theprovince.com/news/loc...ts+assuming+liberals+fall/13550559/story.html

There is probably little in Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon’s past as a rancher and advocate for conservation that would have prepared her for being thrust into the fulcrum of Canadian constitutional democracy, but there are few precedents for the position she is in.

Guichon left the ranges of her family’s historic ranch in the Nicola Valley near Merritt just before roundup in 2012 to take over the mostly ceremonial viceregal position from her predecessor, Steven Point, a Sto:lo First Nation elder and esteemed former Provincial Court judge.

However, if matters in the B.C. legislature follow the expected path and Premier Christy Clark falls on a vote of non-confidence Thursday, she will go to Guichon to resign.

Then the lieutenant-governor will be in the extremely rare position, as an appointed dignitary, of making an independent decision on how to best ensure the stability and integrity of the B.C. government, said Margot Young, an expert in constitutional law in the Allard School of Law at the University of B.C.

“(Lieutenants-governor) are often picked for other sorts of reasons” than expertise in constitutional law, said Young, “but it often doesn’t matter because most of the time it’s largely a ceremonial position.

“But they do have, in moments of political impasses or constitutional crisis, this critical role as the site where the integrity of Canadian democracy rests.”

Typically, a lieutenant-governor acts on the advice of the governing leader when it comes to giving Royal Assent to legislation or deciding the point to dissolve a legislature and drop the writs of election, Young said.

However, in this instance, Clark won’t have the confidence to govern, so Guichon won’t be bound by any advice that Clark gives her, and Guichon’s background will have little bearing on the matter facing her since the circumstances are so rare.

The last time a Canadian lieutenant-governor was thrust into a similar position was in 1985 when an Ontario minority Conservative government fell on a vote of non-confidence and then-Lt.-Gov. John Black Aird offered a Liberal-NDP coalition the chance to govern.

“I think she has quite a lot (of power),” said political scientist Hamish Telford. “It really will be her decision.”

And Telford, head of the political science department at the University of the Fraser Valley, said Guichon has likely been weighing the consequences of that decision since the precarious outcome of B.C.’s election on May 9, taking the advice of experts along the way.

Guichon was appointed to the position by former prime minister Stephen Harper in 2012. While she acknowledged in a 2012 Postmedia News profile that she had been asked to run for politics, she always declined. She built a reputation as a strong advocate for agriculture and the communities that she lived in through her involvement as a director on local health authorities and the B.C. Cattleman’s Association.

In this instance, Telford said Guichon will rely on counsel from a wide group of people, which could include expertise from within the B.C. legislature, such as the clerk of the legislature, the attorney-general’s office, Gov.-Gen. David Johnston, former governors-general and other lieutenants-governor.

It isn’t a given that Guichon will immediately hand over the reins of power to NDP Leader John Horgan, to form a government, with the backing of Andrew Weaver’s Green party. Experts agree, however, that would be a more likely choice than dissolving the legislature and calling another election.

Telford said Clark’s moves in the legislature appear to be laying the groundwork for dissolution and a new election, but he thinks that would be a bad idea. “(An NDP/Green government) may not be sustainable, but in my own opinion, before the legislature is dissolved, it should be given that opportunity.”

And a snap election could run the risk of not providing a more stable result, added UBC political scientist Max Cameron.

“As long as there is the possibility of making the legislature work, I think the institutional interest of the lieutenant-governor is to enable that to happen,” he said.

depenner@postmedia.com

twitter.com/derrickpenner

 

[Cock Throppled]

I almost wish Clark would still be Premier when the massive shit dam she and her party have created bursts. Unfortunately, the new government will get the blame, and the Liberals will spin it like they did the Fast Ferries. And some of you will believe them...https://omny.fm/shows/the-jon-mccomb-show/from-the-thrifty-to-the-shifty