Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrives at Rideau Hall to meet Gov. Gen. Michelle Jean, December 4, 2008
Photo Credit: Adrian Wyld

For the second time in the space of one year, Stephen Harper and his minority Conservative government have forced a little used parliamentary procedure known as ‘prorogue’ to suspend the federal government and delay a new session of Parliament until March 3, 2010.

Apart from the troubling similarities as to the motivations behind these 2 drastic measures, it is impossible to view this second Conservative prorogue request as anything but unprecedented.

On December 4, 2008, Governor-General Michelle Jean granted Harper’s motion to suspend Parliament for over a month, as his Conservative minority strove to fend off an impending vote of no confidence orchestrated by an alliance of the Liberal and New Democratic parties, with the support of the Bloc-Quebecois.

This desperate move by the Prime Minister was in response to the uproar caused by the presentation of his government’s fall economic update, made just days before Harper requested the prorogue. The update included a number of what the opposition parties termed politically motivated measures such as a three year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, limitations on the ability of women to sue for pay equity, and a proposal to eliminate subsidies for political parties.

The Liberals and NDP were outraged that these measures were included at all, and railed against the government for doing little to address the growing global economic downturn while attempting to force these hugely unpopular provisions through the House.

It was this ham fisted effort that precipitated the impending non-confidence motion which Harper’s Conservatives were widely expected to lose.

In the final act of this bizarre twist of fate, the opposition coalition fell apart after the turmoil created when Stephane Dion was ousted as Liberal leader in favor of Michael Ignatief. The NDP and Bloc parties vowed to press forward with the no confidence vote, but the Harper government managed to survive by introducing Liberal backed economic policies in their budget announcement on January 27, 2008, and thus avoided the political embarrassment which may have ensued.

Despite the absurd machinations of the event, the fact that the Prime Minister went to these extraordinary lengths to delay an impending vote of non confidence was at least understandable in the context of how seriously his Conservative minority considered the very real chance of losing such a vote.

The same cannot be said of this second prorogue action.

Critics immediately lashed out at the government for what they claim are Harper’s actual rationales for such a move; to delay all Commons committees, including the ongoing investigation into allegations of detainee abuse in Afghanistan, and to pad the Canadian Senate with the appointment of 5 Conservative nominees, which effectively destroys the Liberal control of the body.

It also provides the ruling Conservatives more control as to when and if to call the next election, by making votes on the budget and the throne speech issues of confidence in Parliament.

Ralph Goodale, the Liberal House Leader said Harper’s decision was “beyond arrogant” and that his justifications for it are “a joke; it’s almost despotic.”

In an interview with the CBC from Phoenix, Arizona, Goodale said, “Three times in three years and twice within one year, the prime minister takes this extraordinary step to muzzle Parliament. This time it’s a cover-up of what the Conservatives knew, and when they knew it, about torture in Afghanistan. So their solution is not to answer the questions but, rather, to padlock Parliament and shut down democracy.”

From Vancouver, NDP House Leader Libby Davies told CBC news she was “appalled” by Harper’s decision, accusing him of “running from” the growing pressure by opposition parties into the Afghan detainee inquiry. “By proroguing Parliament, he is unilaterally making a decision to stop any kind of disclosure from happening,” said Davies.

The allegations by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin regarding the treatment of prisoners by the Afghan government following their handover by Canadian armed forces, and his assertion that the Prime Minister and his government were aware of these practices, has clearly rattled Harper and his Conservative minority to the core.

Coming on the heels of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver in February 2010, opposition critics are adamant that Harper is merely attempting to block any potentially embarrassing revelations about the federal government’s involvement in this highly troubling issue with global attention about to be trained on Canada.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said, “Mr. Harper is showing his disregard for the democratic institutions of our country. The decision to prorogue is about one thing and one thing only – avoiding the scrutiny of Parliament at a time when this government is facing tough questions about their conduct in covering up the detainee scandal.”

NDP Leader Jack Layton was quoted as saying, “The specific reason here is that Stephen Harper doesn’t feel like coming back to town and answering questions about his government. Even though Canadians elected a majority of MPs to hold him to account, he prefers to stay away.”

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe wrote on his Twitter account that prorogation has become “a tradition” for Harper, writing “Instead of facing the music, he prorogues.”

For his own part, the Prime Minister did not even bother to make the announcement of this year’s prorogue himself, preferring to give that dubious honour to his press secretary Dmitry Soudas.

“Now is the time to also engage with constituents, stakeholders and businesses in order to listen to Canadians, identify priorities and to set the next stage of our agenda,” said Soudas in an interview with CBC news. “Minority governments have a different horizon than majority governments, and also those change quickly. So this is time to recalibrate, consult and deliver the next stage of our plan.”

Harper’s refusal to face the Canadian media and public to announce his contentious action is the more perplexing for a man already heavily criticized for avoiding scrutiny in the aftermath of decisions of this magnitude.

It doesn’t give him any more credibility with the announcement that 4 Canadian soldiers and Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat so exemplified by the world’s most prestigious sporting event will be enough to shield his government from their elected duty to actually govern the country?

Clearly, he is betting his political future on the highly unsubstantiated risk that while Canadian athletes are going for gold, he and his Conservatives are going for broke.

Happy New Year Canada.

Related posts:

1. A Piece on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Decision to Prorogue Parliament The PM, proving to be quite uncreative when it comes...
2. Prorogue: Stephen Harper Goes “All In” Any follower of professional poker knows that Stephen Harper just...
3. Stephen Harper Has No Need for Democracy – A Prorogued Parliament is a Silent One As I’ve arrived home from my Christmas holiday, I like...
4. Prime Minister Stephen Harper Prorogues Parliament: Massive “Turtle” or Clever Election Strategy? On December 30th, two weeks after the House of Commons...
5. Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back The unabashed cowardice of Stephen Harper’s latest move may rekindle...

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 3rd, 2010 at 5:15 pm and is filed under Federal Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.