To be clear on the actual process here: #cdnpoli

1) After the election, the PM remains PM. If he wants to test the confidence of the House that’s fine, but if the result doesn’t clearly return his gov’t, then the gov’t remains in “caretaker” mode until confidence is clear. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1339442230231232513

2) No, waiting twelve months is not possible, because it would cause supply issues, requiring the GG to issue Special Warrants. At some point (probably 6 months), the GG would demand that the PM advise the recall of the House and demonstrate confidence, or else face dismissal.

3) If the House returns and a majority of MPs have confidence in the gov’t - even if the gov’ts own party doesn’t have the largest number of seats - that isn’t an undemocratic refusal to transfer power, it’s literally a parliamentary majority - the basis of our democracy.

4) This process can go the other way too - an incumbent gov’t can win the most seats, but be forced out of anyway. Like what happened in JJ’s own province in 2017 when John Horgan took over from Christy Clark. IIRC, JJ responded to that by writing that voters...

...should vote for their MLA and their Premier directly, like the Premier is an American-style President.

5) Using terms like “inaugurated” or “installed” in association with a PM is a nice touch, but false. PMs are selected and sworn in - only heads of state are installed.

6) It is true that none of the above is codified in statute! The law doesn’t even strictly require us to have a Prime Minister at all. But constitutional convention is more than a norm. Between the GG and Parliament, there isn’t much a rogue PM can do for long. /end