Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I wasn't referring to King-Byng in terms of coalitions being good (they can be, this one would not), but the fact that a GG overruling a PM will always be deeply controversial. And King-Byng happened at a time when England didn't interfere with Canada's government out of lack of interest rather than Canada's being independent. The controversy that incident created led directly to the Statute of Westminster, which significantly altered how Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others were governed.
Also, you are wrong in calling Meighan's government a coalition - it wasn't. At least no more so than the Liberals and NDP cooperating on an issue would have been today. The comparable scenario would have been if Johnston refused Harper's request for an election and asked Ignatieff if he could form a minority government, irrespective of the NDP or Bloc's involvement.
The only other example I am aware of of a GG using reserve powers in this fashion was in Austrailia in 1975, and led directly to three constitutional changes. GG's don't interfere without very good reason. |
I didn't mean to imply that Meighen had a coalition. He won the most seats, but King convinced the GG that he could form a coalition with the 28 progressives forming a coalition. He did and everything was fine for the year.
Bottom-line is that a coalition is totally legitimate, and had the opposition gone to the GG and said they lost confidence and wanted to have a shot to form government it could've happened. With the Liberals and NDP targeting each others ridings though its fairly obvious that Harper is just wrong with his coalition assertion. Its all smoke and mirrors.