Canada has a new Governor General and an old problem. In replacing Michaëlle Jean, David Johnston, a lawyer and teacher, inherits a Prime Minister and country in desperate need of a civics lesson.
Confused Canadians often mistake their prime ministers for U.S. presidents.
Once a trivial fact of life lived in the shadow of the American colossus, that befuddlement is now a staple of cutthroat federal politics and a threat to national stability.
Central to the Christmas 2008 constitutional crisis, those twinned realities made cameo appearances here this week.
First Conservatives denied considering an appeal to the Queen if Jean had refused to padlock Parliament two years ago. Then, barely pausing to regain their hyperbole, Harperites inflated the spectre of a coalition seizing control after the coming election.
The denials are credible; the fear-mongering irresponsible.
Even if a trip to London was discussed — governments in extremis examine all options — it would have been quickly dismissed as a fool’s errand and dead end. More revealing is how far Conservatives were ready to go here at home.
As the crisis roiled, John Baird, then as now Stephen Harper’s go-to guy, revealed plans revolutionary enough to rock Canada’s foundations.
Defending Parliament’s suspension, Baird said, “I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people.”
Parsed to its essence, a ruling party then accusing “Liberals, socialists and separatists” of overthrowing the government was contemplating what sounds dangerously close to a coup.
If Jean refused to find in the Prime Minister’s favour, Conservatives were prepared to ride roughshod over Parliament’s will and the Governor General’s decision.
It’s rare when what’s known here is more frightening than what’s speculated. But Baird’s open musings were a greater threat to peace, order and good government than anything said secretly about a stillborn appeal to the Queen.
Largely forgotten is how the truth was twisted during those overheated winter weeks. Contrary to law and precedent, Harper proselytized that he had a personal mandate to govern earned weeks earlier in that fall’s election.
That’s bunk, carved out of ignorance.
Unlike U.S. presidents, Canadian prime ministers can’t claim direct election. They hold power only as long as they have their party’s consent and Parliament’s confidence. In 2008, Harper had one but was about to lose the other.
At that moment Jean had at least three choices. She could, as she did, accept the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament.
She might have accepted, as she did not, that what was essentially procedural trickery should not let Harper escape a showdown with the hurriedly conceived and horribly executed coalition.
Or, more radically, she might have told him to find another Conservative leader able to restore Commons confidence.
In parting, Jean made only passing reference to that testing time. In her goodbye letter she suggested it led Canadians to question how their institutions function.
Even if the questions were asked, Harper still ignores the answers. Conservative are re-creating a bogeyman by savaging as illegitimate a coalition that now exists only in their imagination but has credible counterparts around the world, including Britain.
All that accomplishes is to forecast the return of an old problem for a new Governor General.
Along with cutting ribbons, David Johnston faces the troubling prospect of teaching civics to a reckless Prime Minister and a confused country.
James Travers is a national-affair columnist for The Toronto Star.