Canadians ought to realize that this week's breakdown of their Parliament is far more serious than any of the thuggish revelations from the Gomery commission. As of this weekend, we are in the historically unprecedented situation of having a Prime Minister who is clinging to office by recklessly disregarding the fundamental principles of our democracy. It is a shocking act of proto-tyranny, which justifies the extreme resort of intervention by the Governor-General.
I am not writing this lightly or with any knowledge of or involvement in any party's strategy. Nor do I think that most Canadians understand or perhaps even care about the complexities of the constitutional imbroglio that has unfolded since the opposition began defeating the government in the Commons last Wednesday. Canada this weekend has a government clinging to office against the repeatedly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected members of the House of Commons.
In some countries at some times in their history, a situation like this would lead to citizens taking to the streets in protest. Instead, even those Canadians who notice the situation are content with the thought that it will probably only last until Thursday. Surely a few days of unconstitutionality can't matter.
But they do matter immensely, both for their immediate implications, and as precedent. The defeat of the Martin government on Tuesday came on a procedural, not a confidence motion, but it was such a clear sign that a majority of the House of Commons do not support the government that virtually all constitutional experts are agreed that an immediate test of the House's confidence was required.
Instead of doing this, the government proposed a nine-day delay, offering reasons for the delay so transparently bogus as to affront the intelligence of a 10-year-old. The British Columbia election has nothing whatever to do with the affairs of the Parliament of Canada. The visit of the Queen, a constitutional monarch whose activities are absolutely ceremonial and apolitical, cannot possibly in the 21st century take precedence over the need to resolve an impasse in our elected Parliament.
Paul Martin had a constitutional and moral responsibility to ascertain the confidence of the House of Commons on Wednesday. When he failed in this responsibility he was thumbing his nose at the conventions of responsible government and modern democracy. His government continued to disregard their constitutional responsibilities on Thursday and yesterday, leaving a frustrated opposition to demonstrate its lack of confidence repeatedly by taking control of parliamentary affairs in one vote after another. A government that has been shown to be unable to govern has stated that it will continue to stand in contempt of Parliament for the first three days of next week, but will finally face an explicit test of confidence on Thursday.
The problem with this strategy is that the unconstitutional delay in scheduling the vote of confidence saps it of its legitimacy. If the ministry, which is also manipulating all the levers of power every day it clings to office, wins the vote on Thursday the opposition will have every right to cry foul and continue to contest the government's legitimacy. It will almost certainly paralyze Parliament. At the very least the government's strategy is creating parliamentary bitterness and distrust such as we have never seen in the modern history of Canada. At worst, we are creating the kinds of precedents involving the erosion of our Constitution that in other countries have been initial steps on the road to dictatorship...
AND WHEREAS a defeat for monarchy
and for the people in any one Realm, is a defeat for monarchy and for all our peoples in all our Realms, we do hereby mutually proclaim therefore that any further
acts of disloyalty carried out against our peoples as represented by their Sovereign, or any further encroachment by the political elite on their residual powers of State,
or any further attempts to undermine the legitimacy, independence and dignity of their office, shall no longer be tolerated with gradualist abandonment,
but fought vigilantly and honourably with dutiful obligation, bound by our undying affection, loyal devotion and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II,
Her Heirs and Successors.
WHEREAS by the law and ancient usage of this Realm, the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the Evangelists at their respective coronations,
to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of the said Realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof, in their spiritual and civil rights and properties:
but forasmuch as the oath itself on such occasion administered, hath heretofore been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws
and constitutions at this time unknown: to the end therefore that one uniform oath may be in all times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realm,
and to them respectively administered at the times of their and every of their coronation: may it please your Majesties that it may be enacted:
II. And be it enacted by the King's and Queen's most excellent majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the oath herein mentioned, and hereafter expressed,
shall and may be administered to their most excellent majesties King William and Queen Mary (whom God long preserve) at the time of their coronation,
in the presence of all persons that shall be then and there present at the solemnizing thereof, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York,
or either of them, or any other bishop of this Realm, whom the King's majesty shall thereunto appoint, and who shall be hereby thereunto respectively authorized;
which oath followeth, and shall be administered in this manner; that is to say,
III. [Inserting for Section III of the Act the 1689 oath taken by Her Majesty The Queen on Tuesday, 2 June 1953 amid great public rejoicing]
Archbishop: Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
The Queen: I am willing.
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective
laws and customs?
The Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed
in all your judgements?
The Queen: I will.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession
of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve
inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve
unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them
or any of them?
The Queen: All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being
carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel
in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps),
and saying these words:
The Queen: The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
IV. And be it enacted, That the said oath shall be in like manner administered to every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this Realm,
at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or bishops of this Realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen
respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations; any law, statute,
or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
Supreme Order of Christ (Pontifical) Order of the Golden Spur (Pontifical) Order of Pius IX (Pontifical) Order of St. Gregory the Great (Pontifical) Order of St. Sylvester Pope (Pontifical) Sovereign Order of Malta (Protected) Order of the Holy Sepulchre (Protected) Sacred Order of St. George (Papal Bull) Order of Santiago (Papal Bull) Order of Calatrava (Papal Bull) Order of Alcantara (Papal Bull) Order of Montesa (Papal Bull) Order of St. Stephen (Papal Bull) Bavarian Order of St. George (Papal Bull) Order of the Holy Annunciation (Collar Order) Order of the Golden Fleece (Collar Order) Order of the Holy Spirit (Collar Order) Order of St. Michael (Collar Order) Order of St. Januarius (Collar Order) Order of the Holy Virgin Mary (Teutonic Order)
Order of the Garter (1348) Order of the Thistle (1687) Order of the Bath (1725) Order of St. Patrick (1783-1934) Royal Guelphic Order (1815-1837) Order of St. Michael & St. George (1818) Order of British India (1837-1947) Indian Order of Merit (1837-1947) Order of the Star of India (1861-1947) Royal Order of Victoria & Albert (1862-1901) Order of the Indian Empire (1877-1947) Order of the Crown of India (1878-1947) Distinguished Service Order (1886) Royal Victorian Order (1896) Order of Merit (1902) Imperial Service Order (1902-1993) Order of the British Empire (1917) Order of the Companions of Honour (1917) Order of Burma (1940-1948)