HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1321  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 4:28 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Delta,Vancouver
Posts: 3,233
If the NDP and Green agreement is really as doomed and as simple as you say it is, wouldn't the lieutenant governor see things the same way and simply dissolve the legislature last week rather than wait a few months?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1322  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 4:45 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,106


No. I have made numerous postings herein on same over past few months - either or propositions. LG took one. Both propositions included the fact that the Green/NDP accord was a constitutionally viable alternative. Period.

Even Westminster constitutional expert Ron Cheffins (who advised 5 previous BC LGs) agreed to that. However, Cheffins also stated that due to "practical considerations" he supported dissolution. IOW, he foresaw the s. 43 aspect of same.

BC LG consulted vice-regals across Commonwealth inclusive of Canada's LG. Apparent that the operations of the legislature was irrelevant in her final decision. All the LG was interested in was having a 1st minister (premier) who could secure the "Confidence of the House". That's it. Horgan told the LG that he could secure the "Confidence of the House". That's all the LG needed to hear in terms of "constitutional convention". Legislative operation was irrelevant incl. s. 43 in the LG's final decision.

Quote:
Lieutenant-Governor’s decision carried the weight of constitutional convention

ANDREA WOO
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jun. 30, 2017 10:12PM EDT

By the time B.C. Premier Christy Clark arrived at the official residence of the province’s Lieutenant-Governor having just lost a confidence vote, Judith Guichon had largely made up her mind about what to do next. The weight of constitutional conventions was so great that she felt she had little choice but to call on the New Democrats to take power.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle35529642/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1323  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 4:12 PM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 12,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Bwahahaha. One of the dumbest comments in this thread to date.
Two things here, folks.

1. Keep the personal sniping down, and

2. Don't try to hold court. This only grates against the rest of the community.
__________________
The Colour Green
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1324  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 4:39 PM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 657
didn't want to come back here, but just to underline once again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Again, the GreeNDP gov't will sit in the legislature after Labour Day weekend in order to pass a Throne Speech and budget - first order of business. They won't be able to pass same under a tied vote as the Speaker will not have a casting vote under s. 43 of the BC Constitution Act. Then Horgan's only alternative will be to go to the LG to request dissolution. Anyone disagree?
in the event that there's a tie vote on third reading, the speaker will vote in favor and the law will pass. then, the liberals (or some other party that a court might grant standing, maybe the clerk or something) could but probably won't challenge it in court, and then the court will decide if the speaker's action violates law. and then IF the court rules against the speaker's action, you might then have this election you're fantasizing about.

the idea that you're smarter than the LG and the NDP and the greens, and the BC liberal party that's talking about holding the new goverment's feet to the fire over the coming months and years, idk, maybe it's wrong.
__________________
"Yes, we destroyed the planet. But in one brief, beautiful moment, we created tremendous value for shareholders."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1325  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2017, 10:04 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Torcouver
Posts: 9,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Where did I say stop building entirely? I said stop building condos and start building purpose-built rentals. In a way, it's similar how Vancouver let condo building in the downtown core get out of hand, and eventually had to act to ensure there was space left for commercial growth.

And yes foreign buyer flipping is bad, but truthfully I'm more worried about local speculators. Where is their money coming from? Shaky loans? How many more Home Capital bombs are out there waiting to explode?
Still don't really understand how this helps affordability.

purpose built rentals have exploded in popularity over the last 2-3 years and yet all we have seen is a spike in rental rates and unprecedented growth in the condo market.

Banning condo sales (aside from being more or less unconstitutional) would only put every perspective condo buyer back into the rental game shooting rental rates up. And as a side bonus with no new condo units being constructed those would be a restricted commodity and shoot up in value as well.

Honestly how in the world do you see this fixing things?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1326  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 12:27 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Still don't really understand how this helps affordability.

purpose built rentals have exploded in popularity over the last 2-3 years and yet all we have seen is a spike in rental rates and unprecedented growth in the condo market.

Banning condo sales (aside from being more or less unconstitutional) would only put every perspective condo buyer back into the rental game shooting rental rates up. And as a side bonus with no new condo units being constructed those would be a restricted commodity and shoot up in value as well.

Honestly how in the world do you see this fixing things?
Add the $400 annual rebate for renters proposed by the NDP, landlords will justify increasing rent by $400 per annum (which falls within rent increase allowances). So the rental rebate will go in the landlords pocket instead. Just bad policy right from the get go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1327  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 12:44 AM
Bcasey25raptor's Avatar
Bcasey25raptor Bcasey25raptor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver-False Creek
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Add the $400 annual rebate for renters proposed by the NDP, landlords will justify increasing rent by $400 per annum (which falls within rent increase allowances). So the rental rebate will go in the landlords pocket instead. Just bad policy right from the get go.
I don't disagree with you but Landlords mostly raise their rents annually by inflation + 2% anyway. That $400 a year is a joke and nothing but lite populism.

It won't help anyone really, at least not for more than 1 year.

I feel a smarter idea would have been no renters rebates for rich people and have a progressive tax credit for renters based on income to rent ratio.

Those paying more income towards rent get a larger credit, those paying less than 1/3rd of their income towards rent get none.
__________________
~ Singles life in Vancouver 2017, 200sq ft micro condos, thanks mayor Moonbeam.
~ Just a girl trapped in an inner city micro studio
~ Just Watch me
- Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1328  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2017, 4:57 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by a very long weekend View Post
in the event that there's a tie vote on third reading, the speaker will vote in favor and the law will pass. then, the liberals (or some other party that a court might grant standing, maybe the clerk or something) could but probably won't challenge it in court, and then the court will decide if the speaker's action violates law. and then IF the court rules against the speaker's action, you might then have this election you're fantasizing about.
Sorry man. But, again, that's far-fetched conspiracy theory. Not applicable/relevant to the real world. Again, you are obviously both "green" and legally "wet between the ears".

What we do know:

1. S. 43 & of the BC Constitution Act enshrines Speaker convention into statute esp. at final reading (or all final "decisions" of legislature);
2. The Clerk of the House ("CEO" of the legislature) has already advised the House on import of foregoing s.43;
3. BC Ministry of Attorney-General is advising, in writing, the Clerk of the House, so that it adheres to the BC Constitution Act (starting with election of Speaker);

Ergo, the new Speaker will be undoubtedly fully apprised of s. 43 and his/her statutory obligations thereto. The new Speaker will also be put under the micro-scope by the media, politicians, constitutional experts, and legal experts. And you are suggesting that the new Speaker "willfully" should and will "break the law"? That's certainly a new one to me. From anywhere. Never heard that one before.

In any event, my $25 bet still stands. Take it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1329  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 4:35 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,106
Believe it's worth repeating this matter again along with other new info at hand.

The Clerk of the BC Legislature is basically the "CEO" of the BC Legislature. One should also pay "very careful" attention to what he says as he is the individual who will provide procedural advice/guidance to the new Speaker of the House, whoever that may be. Verified here:

Quote:
Procedural Responsibilities

The Clerk provides non-partisan procedural advice to the Speaker...
https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/officers

IOW, only in a 43 - 43 tie vote, the Speaker has a casting vote and the Clerk of the House will provide procedural guidance in terms of both the BC Constitution Act, Standing Orders, as well as Speaker convention (May's, etc.) to the new Speaker in how to utilize same.

Again, the key guy here is the Clerk of the BC Legislature, Craig James, and one must again listen "very carefully" to his words to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on June 22:

Quote:
Clerk of the House: Good morning, Members. Much has been said about the speakership in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia since May 9. A lot of what is being talked about is wrong. A lot of what has been examined by way of confidence motions, casting vote ... is and has been wrong.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data...2am-Hansard-n1

Again. Very interesting as the Clerk of the House will provide "procedural guidance" to the new Speaker under constant 43 - 43 House ties. Most of "what has been talked about" as alluded to by the Clerk of the House above is that the new Speaker will bend convention and always break ties in favour of the gov't on 3rd and final reading of bills. IOW, a "Corrupted" Speaker. Certainly on "confidence matters" such as a Throne Speech or a Budget. But here, the Clerk of the House is alluding that even on "confidence matters" such as a Throne Speech and Budget, what has "been talked about is wrong" as well.

I suspect that the House Clerk's interpretation is guided by s. 43 of the BC Constitution Act whereby all decisions of the House must be made by majority members of the House other than the Speaker. Moreover, I doubt that the Clerk of the House would make such a statement alluding to confidence matters without written advice from the BC Ministry of the Attorney General and their interpretation of s. 43.

In brief, May’s explains that there are three principles governing the Speaker’s casting vote by "convention":

1. That the Speaker should always vote for further discussion, where this is possible;

2. That where no further discussion is possible, no decisions should be taken except by a majority;

3. That a casting vote on an amendment to a bill should leave the bill in its existing form;

IOW, on 3rd and final reading of a bill, the Speaker always utilizes the casting vote in favour of the "status quo" - ergo votes against the bill. The new Speaker in the GreeNDP will not be able to get around that - could face House censure as a result.

But what about Speaker casting votes on confidence matters such as Throne Speeches and Budgets?

Back in 2003, the incumbent New Brunswick PC gov't, under Bernard Lord, were also reduced to a tied vote + Speaker - similar to that of BC now. Lord then, over the next 2 years, began to appoint opposition Liberal & NDP MLA's to patronage appointments to increase his majority with vacant opposition seats providing for a clear majority in terms of both budgets/bills. The Lord NB PC's also waited a ridiculous amount of time to call the by-elections, so the vacancies gave them some further breathing room.

There was also one budget vote that was conveniently scheduled for a day when at least 2 NB opposition Liberal MLAs and NDP MLA Elizabeth Weir were out of town. BTW, here is a great paper/ thesis from 2008 on this matter:

https://tinyurl.com/y9ec68pl

Just last week, Peter Milliken - well-respected long-time Speaker for the federal Parliament between 2004 and 2011 (a Liberal MP to boot) during the Harper CPC minority years was asked the question in MacLeans about what he would have done on a budget "confidence vote" at 3rd and final reading:

Quote:
Q: Should a Speaker always vote to preserve the government when it comes to a tie vote on a matter of confidence?

A: I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. I don’t know what I would have done if I had to vote on third reading of that (2005) budget bill: do I vote for changes in the law, or do I vote for the status quo? And is the status quo keeping the government in, or is it keeping the law as it is? What’s the Speaker supposed to do? If we researched it at the time, I don’t remember.

Q: Interesting. So there is an inherent conflict in third reading of a budget bill.

A: The argument would be you’ve got to support the government so you’ve got to put it through. But my impression was at third reading on most things you vote against, because you’re voting for the status quo.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/h...a-messy-house/

Only one Speaker precedent that I am aware of relating to a Speaker utilizing a casting vote in Canada on a confidence motion (Throne Speech) with reasons [2004 SK NDP/SK Lib 2 seat majority coalition with one gov't MLA then away on surgery]:

Quote:
In general the principle that applies in this instance is that decisions of the legislature should be taken only by a majority. In a vote such as this one, that is a test of the Assembly’s confidence in the government, the decision of non-confidence should be clearly stated by a majority. It would not be appropriate for the vote of the Speaker alone to overturn the status quo as determined in the last election.
http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue....m=162&art=1112

Certainly a well-reasoned Speaker casting vote precedent in accordance with Speaker convention and May's et al.

Moreover, also follows Speaker Denison's rule:

Quote:
Speaker Denison's rule is a constitutional convention established by John Evelyn Denison, a 19th-century Speaker of the British House of Commons, regarding how the Speaker decides on his casting vote in the event of a tie.

The principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or, where no further debate is possible, to vote in favour of the status quo. For example, the Speaker will vote:

1. In favour of early readings of bills;
2. Against amendments to bills;
3. Against the final enactment of a bill;
4. Against motions of no confidence;

The thinking behind the rule is that change should only occur if an actual majority vote is in favour of change.
Nevertheless, begs the question... Why would the Clerk of the BC Legislature expressly state to the House that what has been said about "confidence motions" (Throne Speech/Budgets) is wrong in terms of a similar Speaker casting vote? Remember that the new Speaker will be relying upon the same Clerk of the House for procedural guidance on these casting vote matters.

Again, my only logical conclusion is that the Clerk of the House has a written legal opinion/interpretation in hand re: s. 43 of the BC Constitution Act from the BC Ministry of the Attorney General. Speaker convention/May's would be irrelevant thereto as statute supersedes same. Unfortunate that no member of the media has interviewed the Clerk of the House in order to clarify these matters as espoused at the commencement of the current session of BC's new Parliament.

On another side note, Vancouver Sun legislative reporter Rob Shaw (always a good analytical read) suggests that the new GreeNDP gov't will utilize cabinet orders, cabinet-approved changes to regulations, ministerial orders and allocations in the annual budget in order to circumvent the Legislature:

Quote:
NDP can push much of its agenda through cabinet, not legislature

VICTORIA — B.C.’s incoming NDP government could fulfil many of its campaign promises through cabinet orders and the annual provincial budget, bypassing the need to squeak numerous bills through the legislature with its one-vote margin.

An analysis of the NDP’s election platform and its power-sharing deal with the B.C. Green party indicates as much as three-quarters of the New Democrat agenda could be implemented through cabinet orders, cabinet-approved changes to regulations, ministerial orders and allocations in the annual budget, rather than a host of specific bills that would each requires a vote in the house.

That could free premier-designate John Horgan’s administration to govern largely outside the legislature, where the Greens and NDP hold a tenuous one-member advantage over the Liberals, and in which every stage of debating and passing bills would be fraught with potential amendments and defeat.

While it may be faster and more convenient to govern by cabinet order, that route could also open the Horgan government to criticism it was making major policy decisions in secret without public debate in the legislature.
http://vancouversun.com/news/politic...ot-legislature

All about negative "political optics" here, via the media, should the GreeNDP decide to pursue this route.

Last edited by Stingray2004; Jul 11, 2017 at 3:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1330  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 5:11 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,106
Poli Sci prof Hamish Telford recently brought up an interesting matter that seems to have flown under the radar in terms of the GreeNDP accord - all votes on budget bills (budgets) in the BC Legislature will not be "confidence" votes. IOW, the Greens or any Green MLA is either free to vote against or abstain on a budget bill, which is highly unusual. Just one Green MLA not voting in favour of same would result in the defeat of the budget this September.

All jurisdictions in Canada, both federally and provincially, consider budget bills as matters of "confidence" by convention and, if a budget bill is not passed, the government falls. Just off the top of my head, in 1979 Canada elected a minority PC gov't under Joe Clark. 9 months later, it was defeated on its first budget and the gov't fell requiring dissolution.

The relevant GreeNDP clause(s) here:

Quote:
4. Both parties will ensure that they have all their elected members at all sittings of the House as reasonable, and will vote in favour of the government on confidence motions.

5. While individual bills, including budget bills, will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence, the overall budgetary policy of the Government, including moving to the committee of supply, will be treated as matters of confidence.
Moving to the Committee of Supply (or Committee of the Whole/Committee "A") is not really relevant. The fact that votes on budget bills will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence is extremely relevant. Quite frankly, I don't see how the GreeNDP gov't could survive if a budget bill is defeated.

Westminster constitutional expert Philippe Lagassé briefly touched on this topic about one month ago:

Quote:
The two parties have tried to shore up their fragile majority by setting a very high bar for a confidence vote. The agreement the two leaders signed states that “individual bills, including budget bills, will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence,” but the overall budgetary policy of the government will be.

Lagassé said the most troublesome situation would be if the coalition loses a vote that is widely considered to be a confidence vote and refuses to let the lieutenant-governor dissolve the legislature. There’s no rule saying what is and isn’t a confidence vote, so it could lead to an acrimonious dispute.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...a-3944f92946fa

The BC Legislature's "diplomatic" view on budget votes:

Quote:
On the sixth day, the Speaker may interrupt debate at least thirty minutes before the ordinary adjournment and call a vote to pass the budget. By tradition, this vote may be treated as a vote of confidence. If the vote is lost, the government could be said to have lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly and may be expected to resign.
https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-peo/Le...08-English.pdf

Certainly very odd that votes on budget bills are not treated as "matters of confidence" in the GreeNDP accord.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1331  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2017, 7:15 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,365
Rather convenient that Horgan pushed his inauguration to tomorrow as it conveniently allows him to avoid the annual Premier's meeting in Edmonton.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.