Constitutional Crises r' Us (plus some separate observations)

Curiosity Cat directs our attention to Tom Flanagan's reply to John Duffy, stating that the harpercons seem prepared to drag us into a constitutional crisis by saying he will not recognize the right of the Governor-General to allow the opposition to govern should they vote non-confidence in another harpercon minority:

DUFFY:Then there's the serious and urgent part. If it turns out that Mr. Harper really does believe that a non-plurality government is unacceptable, we're into another world here. That would amount to a view so far at odds with the actual constitution as to threaten a crisis. We saw the edges of this frightening scenario materialize in 2008, with threats of separation, street action and assertions of extra-constitutional force majeure. Is that where the Conservatives will head if cornered in Parliament?

FLANAGAN:There’s no point in discussing constitutional hypotheticals right now. We have to remember that constitutional conventions are formed by what office-holders such as the prime minister and governor-general do in concrete situations. That’s why conventions can evolve over time.

DUFFY:[harper's] attempt to delegitimize any government that isn't Conservative is dangerous. Let him affirm the legitimacy and go to town on the policies and stability. That would be healthy. Instead, Mr. Harper continued Wednesday to refuse to accept the legitimacy of a non-plurality governing scenario. Which really does lead to the crucial question: Will Mr. Harper respect Canada's Constitution?

Some anonymous commentator at Curiosity Cat's has tried to perform some Westminsterian jiu-jitsu by arguing that it would be the G-G creating a constitutional crisis by refusing to obey the prime minister's request/demand that Parliament be dissolved and a new election called. I believe that this scholarly argument lays that claim to rest. Here's the money shot:

First of all, the governor general’s decision was actually going to be a substantial intervention in the political process regardless of whether she granted prorogation or not. Indeed her decision to grant Mr Harper’s request has in fact prevented our elected members of parliament from resolving the issue in a timely fashion. The governor general was clearly informed by the opposition parties of their desire and intent to vote no confidence in the government on December 8th, and to support an alternative government.

Parliament’s ability to vote confidence in a government is all the more important in the early weeks following an election that produced only minority parties. Only the elected members of the House can determine who has the right to govern in a minority situation. The incumbent prime minister has a right to meet parliament after an election, but only that. The prime minister must win and maintain the confidence of parliament in order to continue governing. The governor general has prevented a newly elected parliament from expressing its judgment on the prime minister.

I must admit that I find it rich that a (possible) harpercon supporter is accusing any party other than its own of fomenting a constitutional crisis! That link comes from an opinion written in response to the Governor-General's 2008 when stephen harper was busy applying Karl Rove's handbook to Westminster-style Parliament to cries of shock and outrage worldwide.

harper did it again in December 2010 when he prorogued Parliament to try to avoid giving it the information it was demanding regarding his conduct of the war in Afghanistan. In so doing, harper was merely following the examples of other prime ministers, such as Jean Chretien, who abused their powers in the same way that they (like harper) call elections whenever it suits them. However, coming as it did after his unprecedented abuse of the power to avoid a non-confidence vote, and doing it so casually by phoning-in his request, and doing it to try to cover-up war crimes, his second controversial prorogation sparked a wave of outrage among informed, sane people across Canada.

When Parliament resumed, harper dragged out the issue of the supremacy of Parliament into another constitutional showdown that was resolved by Speaker Milliken's decision that the government was obligated to produce the persons and papers that Parliament demanded. (This has, in typical Canadian-elitist-stupid fashion, created the farcical committee that has been going through the documents for over a year without exercising their ability to release whatever they choose.)

During this crisis, remember, there were militarist psychopaths braying that they would place the "honour" of the Canadian Forces over the rights of Parliament. Need I say that such an attitude, especially when used to cover-up allegations of war crimes, is hardly healthy for a democracy?

harper would have produced another constitutional crisis with his order to government employees to not obey summonses from parliamentary committees had the Liberals not "caved like spineless jellyfish" and declined to vote for the NDP-Bloc motion that the government respect the rights of Parliament. (That's rich 'eh? The Bloc Quebecois has more respect for Canada's Parliament than either the harpercons or the Liberal!!!)

The harpercons created two Charter crises, by refusing to defend the Charter rights and freedoms of two Canadian citizens, Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik, forcing the Supreme Court to rule for the rights of the former and Federal Judge Russel Zinn to issue a powerful condemnation of the government in his ruling for the rights of the latter.

Finally, harper has produced the two crises that brought about the recent defeat of his government of racists, closet-cases, con-men, and corrupt assholes; his nonchalance over Bev Oda's lying to Parliament about the altering of public documents and his [AGAIN!!!] contempt of Parliament in his refusal to allow Parliament to see cost estimates for his stupid crime legislation. Detailed cost estimates, produced by bureaucrats working for us, the taxpayers, are being refused to Parliament on the spurious grounds of "cabinet secrecy." Speaker Milliken has again been forced to make an unprecedented ruling, happily clarifying for all time, the supremacy of Parliament over the executive branch. His ruling demonstrated that there are grounds for contempt charges in harper's government's behaviour, producing the non-confidence vote that has produced this election.

The record is clear to anyone with the ability to see it. harper has been continuously testing the constitutional limits of executive power. He has repeatedly gone beyond those limits. The difference between tyranny and democracy is the people's ability to restrain the power of those who govern them. harper's precedents would render the people's rule null and void.
FOR THE RECORD: The big news on prog-blogs when I started writing this was the NDP moving well into first place in a poll among Quebec voters. Personally, I'd be very happy if the NDP's aggressive campaign (targeting the Liberals as much as the hapercons) turns out to have borne fruit and destroyed the Liberal Party. One of the things that depressed me about this election was how the sheer abomination that is stephen harper made so many sincerely progressive people think that for this election at least, it was crucial to hold their nose and vote for a Liberal rather than the party that more clearly represents a genuine vote to defend Canadian Medicare, unemployment insurance, and other aspects of Canada's welfare state. This is as soul-destroying an exercise as voting for the US Democratic Party merely to prevent the crazy, extremist, piss-in-your-face Repugnicans from getting power.

It was, and is, a dangerous game however. harper has imported the extreme contempt for democracy and the rule of law attitude of the US Repugnicans to Canada, and if I was the one calling the shots I would have taken more care to have an understanding in place with my fellow opposition parties to direct our fire at the harpercons rather than at each other.