While My Blog Gently Weeps

It's now the Constitution of Convenience. The people of Canada elected officials to the House of Commons. It's the House of Commons that represents Canada. If the House, by a majority of votes pass a motion that is explicitly non-confidence, which does not have to be budget bills, it means the Government of the day has lost confidence of the House. We are not dealing with honourable elected officials. We are dealing with corrupt Liberals and the New Democratic Party who is the puppet of the Canadian Auto-Workers Union.

I'll bid farewell to ev'ry fear
And wipe my weeping eyes
- Isaac Watts


From the History of Canada's Constitutional Development - Government of Canada Privy Council Office

"Responsible government denotes a system wherein the members of Cabinet are collectively responsible to the elected House for the actions of the executive. If they lose the confidence or support of the elected House, they must resign or seek a new mandate.

Conventions and precedent remain to this day the basis of responsible government in Canada."

And from something as basic as MSN Encarta:

"Specifically, the prime minister and cabinet ministers are accountable to the House of Commons and must maintain the support of a majority of its members. Central to the concept of responsible government are the principles of ministerial responsibility. These principles were derived from the parliamentary experience of Britain and were adopted in Canada when the country was founded. There are two parts to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility: collective and individual.

The confidence rule requires the prime minister and the Cabinet to maintain the confidence, or support, of the House of Commons. It gives Parliament a tool to keep the prime minister and the Cabinet accountable to all voters. The House of Commons can withdraw its support by voting down a significant government proposal or by approving a specific motion of “no confidence” in the government.

There are occasions during each parliamentary session when each opposition party is allowed to introduce motions of “no confidence” in the government. MPs (the abbreviation for member of Parliament that identifies members of Commons) can present such a motion in response to the Speech from the Throne, which outlines the government’s legislative program. Members of Commons can also present a motion in response to the Budget Speech, which reviews the government’s economic record, taxation, and expenditure plans, and to Supply Motions, which concern budgets for individual departments. If a majority of MPs support a no-confidence motion, the government must resign."

Perhaps we should let Encarta know it doesn't apply to the C.A.W backed-Office Dealing Stronach-Liberal Government?

And from Associate Professor Heard at Simon Fraser University:

"The fundamental basis of a confidence vote is that the elected members of the legislature express their collective view of the government. If that view conveys a loss of confidence or states that the government should resign, then the government must either resign or call an election.

The wording of the motion passed on May 10, 2005 indicates that it should be considered a clear vote of confidence. What is important in this motion is that the House had to collectively express its view on whether the government should resign. One could not vote for the motion without agreeing that the government should resign, which is the essence of a non-confidence vote. While the wording of the motion is convoluted, the essential content is a clear expression of non-confidence."

Check out this post "We Are Players in the Game" for more Constitutional Info