What's a GG to do?

Media rhetoric notwithstanding, Canada's national political situation is not in a constitutional crisis as much as it is in the middle of an interesting lesson in how our system of government works. So far the system is functioning pretty much as it's supposed to, and showing how resilient and flexible it can be. I do hedge a bit in saying 'so far' because I recognize that we are much closer to a true constitutional crisis than we have been since the patriation of the constitution.

What would it take to turn the situation into a true constitutional crisis? Something would have to happen that challenges the ability of the system to respond in a way that is both legal and widely acceptable to Canadians. Since our constitution is an odd mix of written and unwritten (conventional) rules that date back hundreds of years in many cases, it is hard to imagine what that something might be. It really is a well tested old goat of a system. The only possibility of a true crisis, as it seems to me, is a failure of the second test: something happens that is widely unacceptable to the population or an important part of it. In simple terms, someone would really have to put their foot in it.

At the moment Michaelle Jean, the Governor General, has kept her boots clean. She made the correct decision in acceding to Stephen Harper's request to prorogue parliament. Personally I don't like it on the level of basic political justice --a Prime Minister ought not to be able to avoid a confidence motion simply by gathering up his marbles and going back to Sussex Drive-- but it was the right thing to do. Refusing a sitting Prime Minister's request would have been a surprise, and surprise is rarely the basis of sound policy. As a Liberal appointment with some slight taint (fair or, more likely not) of association with separatists such a course would have truly opened the door to crisis. There were good prudential reasons for granting the request also. Foremost is that the job of the Governor General really amounts to appointing a stable and functioning government, and little else. Granting this request not only gives Stephen Harper some breathing room, but also allows the coalition to prove itself as a stable alternative to the Conservatives. That is looking less and less to be the case.

So from here it now appears the most likely course is back to business-as-usual in a minority parliament. There is one bear trap out there as I see it though, and that would open up if the Prime Minister loses a confidence motion shortly after the house resumes in January, and then asks for a new election. In such a case she would have three options:

1. Grant a dissolution and call an election.
   
2. Ask the opposition coalition to form a government.
3. Ask another member of the governing party to form a government.

The first option is obviously the safest choice. The only drawback is that with the last election less than 6 months ago and no substantive change in result likely (as far as we can see now), an election seems a colossal waste of time and resources. Clearly most Canadians would accept this choice, however much they might resent various politicians for putting them to the trouble.

The second option is perhaps the riskiest. The opposition parties outnumber the Conservatives by 20 seats, but the two coalition partners together trail by 30. This isn't a good balance, and likely won't last the duration of the signed coalition agreement. It is also apparently viewed as illegitimate in large sections of the country. The longer the government can avoid defeat, the less the likelihood of this option being chosen.

The final option is the least likely without the Prime Minister's acquiescence, and carries with it a peculiar set of risks, but it's also, I think, the best possible outcome. It is clear to just about everyone that it is Stephen Harper much more than his party, that has lost the confidence of the house. Asking another member of his party perserves the results of the last general election, chastens the sitting PM, and spares the population in general the expense of another likely inconclusive general election. I suspect the opposition parties would (in private) welcome the outcome. The risks? Well they're related to my pet peeve.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Prime Minster could be easily and cleanly replaced by someone chosen from and by his caucus? Instead, 143 duly elected Conservative members are helplessly tied to Harper whether they want to be or not. And Canadians face the prospect of an unnecessary and expensive election not many of them want. So who does this system serve?