Will Harper Provoke a Constitutional Crisis?

Public ignorance of constitutional issues could keep the Conservative leader in power.

Just as the language and rhetoric surrounding the legitimacy of coalition governments poisoned the idea of political co-operation in 2008, many experts believe Canadians continue to suffer from a “shocking ignorance” about our system of government. In 2011, Canadians have been further confused by a campaign of miseducation by government officials and in some cases the media.

Recent comments by Stephen Harper have led some commentators like Andrew Coyne to wonder aloud if the Conservative leader is positioning himself to provoke a true constitutional crisis in the weeks to come. What are we to do if he once again tries to up-end core principles of responsible government to hold on to power should he fail to win a majority government? What if he loses or is poised to lose the confidence of the House of Commons?

Unless we are aware of the constitutional issues at stake, Harper’s attempt to use Canadians’ ignorance against them by propagating myths, fairy tales, and outright misrepresentations about our parliamentary system may be successful.

One approach is to fight fiction with facts, and my friend, Helen Forsey, has compiled a useful list of myths and misrepresentations. These include the idea that coalitions are evil and illegitimate, that Canadians elect the prime minister and a government, and that defeating a government on a confidence motion forces a fresh election. The most dangerous fiction is the idea that if the opposition accepts the Governor General’s invitation to replace a government that has lost the confidence of the House, this would amount to an “illegitimate seizure of power.”

Unfortunately, these myths too often go unchallenged by the mainstream media. Just like the “birther” nonsense in the U.S., the temptation to treat every claim equally, regardless of its basis in fact, history, or convention, has had profound consequences in Canada. There appears to be a general acceptance among many in the pundit class that those who vote for anyone but the party with the most seats are “losers.”

From a constitutional point of view, the subversive idea that any coalition in Canada would amount to either a socialist or separatist coup d’état threatens the foundation of parliamentary democracy. It has been a personal passion (obsession?) of mine since 2008. My own meagre attempt to understand and contextualize the events of the first-ever prorogation to avoid a confidence vote were recently published.

But don’t take my word for it. Recently, University of Toronto Professor Emeritus Peter Russell organized a non-partisan workshop for leading Canadian academics and political thinkers to begin a process to create a how-to manual for the country to follow if the next election produces an unclear result. The report deserves to be read in its entirety, but here are five key principles from Peter Russell to remember when the going gets tough:

1. Parliament is the core institution of Canadian democracy. The House of Commons, its elected chamber, is the one body elected by all Canadians.

2. When Canadians go to the polls, they elect the House of Commons, not a government. The right to govern goes to the members of the House who can secure its confidence.

3. The prime minister is the servant of the House of Commons and must be accountable to it all times.

4. When no party has a majority in the House of Commons, it is for the House to decide what kind of government it will support. In these situations, the House basically has three choices: a coalition government of two or more parties that share cabinet posts; a minority government in an alliance with two or more parties that agree to support it on the basis of agreed-upon policies but that do not share cabinet posts; a minority government that works out agreements with opposition parties issue by issue.

5. The Governor General’s role is to exercise the Crown’s discretionary reserve powers only when necessary to permit the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.