Aaron, what on earth are you talking about? There is no precedent for the Supreme Court ever punting anything to the governor general, and the article you link makes no mention of the Supreme Court.

I agree with you that the GG is and should be more than a figurehead but the example you made up above is just crazy talk.

From my understanding, the motion is not one of contempt against the government in general, it's contempt specifically against Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, and Lawrence Cannon.

A contempt motion certainly could be perceived as "no confidence" in these individuals; to what extent that should mean "no confidence" in the government in general is probably open to interpretation.

Good question. Here is an excerpt from their own book:
"A complaint on a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. If the Speaker feels that these two conditions have been met, the Speaker informs the House that, in his or her opinion, this matter is entitled to take precedence over the notices of motions and Orders of the Day standing on the Order Paper. The Speaker’s ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed. This is a matter which can only be decided by the House itself."

All he appears to be asked to do is to say if it looks like the issue involves the privileges of the House, not to make a final judgement.

The GG has all the powers of the queen, being the queen's representative in Canada. She is 'standing in' for the Queen, legally. She can refuse to dissove Parliament under the reserve powers of the Lascelles Principles.

When did the House vote no confidence and Martin ignored it, wilson.

Please enlighten us because no one else seems to be aware of this unprecedented, and previously unknown, moment in Parliamentary history.