As they jockey for political advantage, following the recent ruling by Commons Speaker Peter Milliken on the supremacy of parliament, Canada's political parties could be triggering an election with ramifications far beyond who forms the next government.

That will happen if Prime Minister Stephen Harper decides to ignore the Speaker's ruling on handing over sensitive documents pertaining to Afghan detainees and, as a result, loses a vote finding his government in contempt of Parliament.

Should that happen, Harper would have no choice but to ask the Governor General to dissolve the legislature and call an election, which he and his Conservatives, currently riding highest in the polls, could go on to win.

If that were to occur, it would establish the convention that a prime minister and his cabinet are beyond the reach of parliament. That, minority government or not, it is the executive branch of government that is supreme, not the House of Commons.

Alarmist you say. I don't think so. Let's walk through the steps.

Precedent set

Even though there is a law in place with a fixed date (October 2012) for the next federal election — not to mention the possibility of a governing deal between the Liberals and the NDP — Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean would have little alternative but to allow for an immediate election if the Harper government was found in contempt of parliament and asked for a dissolution.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Commons Speaker Peter Milliken in Parliament, May 4, 2010. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Why? Because the principle that a prime minister's request for an election is always granted was pretty much established in the federal election of 1926.

History buffs and constitutional observers will remember how that happened. It flowed from the election of 1925, when Mackenzie King's Liberals won fewer seats than Arthur Meighen and the Conservatives but stayed on nonetheless.

King had come to power in 1921, ending a decade of Conservative government, and after the disappointing results of the 1925 election he decided to try to hold onto power with the support of Progressive MPs from Western Canada.

When, a year later, the Progressives abandoned King and he was defeated on a confidence vote, the prime minister asked the Governor General, Lord Byng, for an election. But Byng said no and instead asked Meighen to form a government.

Meighen formed a cabinet, but the Progressives wouldn't support him either. Defeated in the House, he asked Byng for an election and the request was granted.

King-Byng

In the ensuing campaign, King made much of the fact that his request for an election had been rejected by the British-appointed Byng, but that Meighen had been granted one.

For historians, the controversy came to be known as the King-Byng Affair and when the Liberals won handily in 1926, the convention essentially became that if a prime minister asks for an election, the prime minister gets one.

In fact that convention appears to have been expanded to the point where now whatever a prime minister asks the Governor General for he gets. As evidence: the prorogation that Harper was granted to avoid certain defeat on that first confidence vote following the 2008 election, even though Parliament had been sitting only a couple of weeks.

All of this look back in history is to illustrate the point that if Stephen Harper is defeated on a contempt vote and is subsequently re-elected, even with another minority, the convention may be established that a prime minister and his government can stand above parliamentary censure.

That is assuming, of course, that he is seen to have won public backing for his position that there are certain confidences a government is entitled to keep from a parliament's demands.

In that event, parliament would have no effective control over what the government and a prime minister can do, unless it is willing to plunge the country into more confidence votes and election after election.

Beyond election night

Things are bad enough already in majority parliaments, where government backbenchers fall in line to do the cabinet's bidding. But at least the principle of parliamentary supremacy is upheld, since these backbenchers make up the majority.

But if, after three successive minority parliaments (and the probability of more to come), the government is no longer really accountable to the House of Commons, what will we have done to our system of government?

You may say you don't care. You like Stephen Harper, you want the Conservatives in power and if they win again, good for them.

But remember, if the scenario develops the way I have outlined, the implications could last far beyond the winner on election night.

In the same way that the election defeat of Conservative Arthur Meighen in 1926 provided the prorogation precedent for Conservative Stephen Harper in 2008, a Harper victory on the contempt issue this year would set the example for every future prime minister of any party.

This said, an election around the issue of defying a parliamentary censure is not in the interests of anyone, no matter their political persuasion.

In his measured, well-reasoned ruling, the Speaker reminded all sides that there has been a long history of finding accommodations on difficult, divisive issues while still maintaining the primacy of parliament.

Since the Magna Carta in 1215, the concept of parliamentary supremacy and the responsibility of the executive to the members of the House of Commons has been the fundamental cornerstone of the British and Canadian parliamentary system of government.

In 2010, it must remain so.