Stephen Harper: Prorogue Parliament, Insult Democracy

John Ibbitson draws attention to an interesting quote from Stephen Harper in 2003:

The government will prorogue the House so that it will not be held accountable for its shameful record.

Mr. Harper, then the leader of the Official Opposition, was outraged at the possibility that a then-Liberal government would prorogue the House of Commons;  Mr. Harper evidently believed that the Liberal government was shirking its responsibilities to meet – and answer to –  the Parliament elected by Canadians.

As Ibbitson points out of course, Mr. Harper is doing the very thing now that he correctly (if somewhat hypocritically) condemned then.   This government does not like being held accountable by anyone, ever;  not journalists, not public servants, not even the country’s highest elected democratic assembly.  Just over a month ago, Mr. Harper waxed poetic about what a wonderful thing it is “when journalists are free to pursue the truth, to shine light into dark corners, and to assist the process of holding governments accountable” – and then (believe it or not)  refused to take questions from reporters gathered to hear his remarks.  It’s no wonder that the PM doesn’t want to talk to reporters, because they might ask embarrassing questions about the government’s knowledge of possible abuses of detainees in Afghanistan.  Those were the questions being asked by the Military Police Complaints Commission, when the government decided to  send the chairman on an extended, involuntary, and permanent vacation.  The same embarrassing questions were coming from Parliamentary  Committees concerned about the Government of Canada breaching its obligations in Afghanistan under the Geneva Convention.  No problem.  How does a nice two month long vacation for all Parliamentarians sound?  And there will be Olympics to cheer!  Yay!

The idea is that it is fundamental to our notions of responsible government in a parliamentary democracy that the government of the day must “meet the House”; though majority governments may (by virtue of the number of elected members of the party sitting in the House) possess the ability to ram through legislation and seemingly act at will, even they must answer questions about the government’s actions and agenda in the House, questions asked by the Opposition.  This requirement that the government of the day must meet the House is supposed to (through the mechanisms of moral suasion and public debate) keep it honest.  Of course, this Harper government does not even have the luxury of a majority, or the democratic mandate that would go along with it.  Minority governments are supposed to be more, not less, responsive to the concerns of the elected members of the House.

Instead, by summarily terminating Parliament in this way, Mr. Harper and his government seeks to stifle what little public debate has occurred to date about these issues.   It is anti-democratic, and Mr. Harper (as demonstrated by the quote reproduced above) knows it.

Bruce Arthur, in the National Post, points out the timing of this announcement:

Our Prime Minister could have chosen the bustle of Christmas Eve, or the hangover of New Year’s Day, or any of the other attention-demolishing moments of the holidays to let slip the suspension of democratically elected debate in this country, such as it is. Plenty of options there.

Instead, he did it while Canada was hotly debating the relative merits of Patrice Bergeron over Martin St. Louis, or Drew Doughty over Jay Bouwmeester. Say what you will about the man in charge of our country, but he’s got a sense of timing, if not much of a sense of democracy.