The Written Word
for July 21, 1999

There has been a lot of speculation as to what the Lieutenant-Governor’s powers are and whether he can force the Clark government out of office or call an election. The difficulties in answering this question are at least two in number – what can the "sovereign" do as a matter of practice and what will this particular "sovereign" do. This is compounded by the further difficulty that on paper the "sovereign" can do damned near anything – most of it isn’t law but convention.

I think it’s safe to say that no L/G is going to dismiss a premier on his own personal whim. Whether Mr Gardom likes or dislikes a government is not relevant.

What if Mr Clark were to lose a vote of Confidence in the legislature and refused to resign? So far as I know that’s never happened except the Byng case in 1926 a sort of reverse situation occured. In that matter Mackenzie King, with a minority government, went to the Governor-General, Lord Byng and asked for a dissolution and an election writ. Lord Byng refused and asked the opposition leader, Arthur Meighen to form a government which he did but he promptly lost a vote of confidence and Byng issued a writ for an election. Mackenzie King won the ensuing election much on the basis that Lord Byng had exceeded his conventional authority by refusing him an election writ when he asked for it. Most constitutional lawyers would now agree that if the Premier/Prime Minister asks for an election writ it must be issued … BUT, what if another MP or MLA demonstrates to the LG that he can form a majority government?

This was the issue in 1991 during the dying days of the Vander Zalm government. Mr Vander Zalm, under enormous pressure from his caucus, refused to resign and threatened to call an election and take the whole works of them down the tube with him. A group of Socreds approached the Lieutenant-Governor of the day, David Lamb, and said that an alternative majority government to Vander Zalm could be formed. This sent Mr Lam to his constitutional experts both in Victoria and Ottawa and he was subsequently advised that if he was satisfied that a new majority government could be formed in this parliament he must give that a try. Thus one of Mr Vander Zalm’s chief weapons of discipline was removed.

What would be the case if, say, four or five NDP backbenchers, when the House was not in session, went to Mr Gardom and said that they would vote against the government and bring it down so please issue an election writ now?

I believe Mr Gardom would rightly refuse such a request on the basis that the Legislature was 75 in number and they all had a right to vote no matter how predictable the outcome might be. In fact I think he would say that even if a majority of MLA said they would vote against the government Mr Gardom would say, well, then, when that happens it will be a different matter but at this moment, the government has a majority. The difference between this and the Vander Zalm case was that Mr Vander Zalm was, hypothetically, going to try to dissolve parliament and a group of members said in that hypothetical situation there are enough of us under a new leader to form a majority government.

What if a government lost a vote of confidence yet refused to resign?

In that case the sovereign would be bound by tradition to implement the wishes of parliament and call an election.

In other words, the sovereign is bound by custom to favour the continuation of parliament unless he is clearly shown that the government has lost the confidence of that parliament.

Getting rid of Mr Clark remains outside the powers of Government House and remain with the New Democratic Party … and ultimately, us the voters.