Collective amnesia (I)

There's a bit of press coverage these past two days about a Dominion Institute report which observes and grades each of the provinces' school Canadian History curriculum. It's interesting and might be worthy of a few comments later, but it's not the point of this post.

What is the point of this post, however, is the appalling level of ignorance being demonstrated this afternoon among Canada's political punditry, about our Constitution, our electoral process, and about a little bit of political history that happened, way, way, wa-a-a-ay back in December of 2008.

Before we look at the past, let's look to the future. Friday, to be precise.

There's going to be a confidence vote in the House, and one of two things will happen. It will either (a) pass, or (b) fail.

The discussion then has shifted to the inane question, "Who will force the election?" will it be (a) Stephen Harper or (b) Michael Ignatieff. (For simplicity's sake I will leave out other possible options like (c) swine flu and (d) Jack Layton's math.)

Just about every journalist and prognosticator would have you believe that the inevitable and only possible outcome of Liberals voting down the Conservatives on a confidence motion is an immediate election.

Every Tory spinner will have you believe the same. For all I know, that's the Liberal line as well, but I certainly don't purport to know.

The problem is, that neither the Leader of the Opposition, nor the Prime Minister, in a minority Parliament, gets to call an election. They have to ask. If the ball is in anyone's court, it's Madame Jean's.

And that's where an interesting possibility arises, one which Canadians should at least be considering, given the way we tied ourselves up in knots about such procedural questions just a few short months ago.

In short, the one person who has absolutely no say in the matter of whether or not an election occurs, is Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Prime Minister has to ask for an election. Losing the confidence of the House means losing the government, but it is entirely within the Governor General's purview to deny such a request, and to turn over the reins of power to another individual who can command the confidence of the House. And before anyone blurts out the "C" word, no - it doesn't require a coalition.

In normal times, this would be unthinkable. A Prime Minister with a majority gets an election when one is requested, simply because it is impossible for another to command a majority in the House. And even in normal minority circumstances, a Prime Minister's request will be granted, when it is clear that Parliament can no longer function.

But these aren't normal times. The ink on the last election writs are barely dry, and this Prime Minister has already gone cap in hand to the Governor General to save his bacon once. She granted his last wish. She didn't have to then, and she certainly doesn't have to now.

She has every reason to consider swearing Michael Ignatieff in as Prime Minister by this time next week, should the government fall. Under our system, he's got the right to that chance.