northernhick
|
Which time?
Each time was deeply disturbing for completely different reasons.
In late 2008, very shortly after an election (which he won on a campaign of "Economic crisis? What economic crisis?"), he introduced a mini-budget (to address urgent matters in response to the economic crisis), and he thought to use the weakened state of the opposition parties in order to trample them into submission. The opposition parties have been in a financial crisis, whereas money is not something the PC/CPC have ever had trouble getting, so the mini-budget included measures which would seriously limit opposition party income.
Since a budget is a confidence motion, voting down the budget would bring down the government and - ostensibly - force an election, which none of the opposition parties could afford, either politically or financially.
What he didn't count on was that forcing the opposition into a corner like that would force them to form a coalition; Stephane Dion worked out a deal with Jack Layton to form a coalition government, with certain concessions to the Bloc Quebecois to earn their support as well. A majority of the House of Commons, therefore, was able to come together against Harper. Constitutionally, where the government falls (due to a defeated confidence motion), the G-G can (and pretty much has to) let another MP form a government if they have the confidence of the House.
So we ended up in a situation where Harper didn't have the confidence of the House, Dion did, and there was a confidence vote approaching.
For *no other reason* than to keep himself from getting fired as PM, Harper asked the G-G to prorogue Parliament. This was a precedent; never before had a PM asked the G-G to do this to avoid an impending confidence motion. She *could* have said no. To my mind, she should have. Her job is to be an impartial referee for the political arena. I compare the 2008 prorogue to the ref whistling down the play for no other reason than that the away team is on a breakaway and the home goalie is out of position. She allowed the prorogue, setting a dangerous precedent in terms of executive power.
Another metaphor is that of an employee who knows that he's about to get fired from his job, and arranges to get a doctor's note putting him on medical leave. You can't get fired because you're not at work. And you're still getting paid. (In Harper's case, it means he still retains all the executive powers, even during the prorogue.)
(Incidentally, Harper had argued that the mini-budget was badly needed in the face of the economic crisis...but then to save his own job he killed the mini-budget himself by proroguing.
I also consider it offensive that Harper defends his actions on the basis that the coalition was a coup. It wouldn't be the first time a coalition government has formed in Canada; it accords with our constitution and the nature of our democracy just fine. Harper's PR on that was designed to misinform and mislead the Canadian public about the nature of our constitution, and - coming from the Prime Minister - I find that to be highly inappropriate.
So the answer for why the 2008 prorogue was bad is this: Its sole purpose was to facilitate the continued office of a government which, at that time, did not have the confidence of the House.
The 2009 prorogue was different. In that case, Harper was taking heat over the Afghan detainee scandal: The Harper government had been taking a hard line: 'There is no abuse of detainees turned over to the Afghan authorities.' They had maligned and defamed reputable Canadian officials in Afghanistan who had said otherwise. In the face of substantial evidence, they continued to insist that nothing inappropriate was going on.
Finally, incontrovertible proof came up that detainees turned over to Afghan authorities by the Canadians were being tortured, and the Harper government's response was 'We did not know that'. So Parliament asked - and when I say 'asked', I mean 'demanded, in a legally obligatory way' - that the government turn over all its records relating to Afghan detainees. Because if the government knew of the abuse, its actions would constitute a war crime. The government refused to provide the requested information, citing national security.
Understand this: One of the most fundamental principles of our constitution is the Supremacy of Parliament. Parliament is Stephen Harper's boss. He holds his office at the will of Parliament, and when Parliament tells him to do something, he doesn't have a choice in the matter. Thus, the refusal to disclose information demanded by Parliament put him in Contempt of Parliament.
So in late 2009, when the government was taking a lot of flak over the detainee scandal and the refusal to comply with a Parliamentary Summons, he asked the G-G to prorogue Parliament again.
Harper has been taking the approach that, whenever Parliament becomes inconvenient, he will simply shut it down.
This is the sort of action that prompted revolutions against Monarchies. Shut down Parliament, stall their effective challenge on the Afghan detainee issue, and hope that the Canadian people gets distracted by the Olympics for long enough that the Conservatives can get off to a fresh start afterwards.
So the reason that the 2009/2010 prorogue was bad was that it was engaged as a means of circumventing Parliamentary Supremacy and governmental accountability to Parliament. |
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
