Govt Refusing Parliament's ORDER: What Do Manning & Reform Founders Think?

Has anyone thought to ask Manning & other Reform founders (ex: Grey) what they think of a government, any government, refusing to obey an ORDER of Parliament? Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I could swear the central theme of the 1993 Reform campaign was all about the abuse of power by the parliamentary majority and especially the executive issued therefrom, and the need for the legislative branch to be strengthened, and the primacy of Parliament, and all that. I seem to recall some huge vicious outrage on this score. Correct if I'm wrong, but this was Reform's raison d'être, no? And why Reformers' rhetoric was often over-the-top and confused, but full of righteousness, calling for the heads of that awful authoritarian Conservative Government. So I'm wondering what Manning et.al. say about this current UNPRECEDENTED refusal of the Govt to obey Parliament's Order. Whether they agree with the substance of the Order or not, whether they like it or not, what do they think of governments, of any government, refusing to bow to an order of parliament, however wrongheaded they feel it is. What were their principles then? What are their principles now? And if they are coherent with themselves, and say what one would expect, given all their well-publicised pro-democracy clamour over the years, should not someone make a point of getting them on record on this question? It might prove quite important.