Proroguing:A Year Later

My last post on this blog concerned Stephen Harper's request to the GG in December 2008 to prorogue Parliament to avoid a nonconfidence vote and certain defeat in the House. The GG granted Harper's request against the advice of some constitutional experts. Subsequently Harper campaigned aggressively against the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition, supported by the BQ. A photo showing Gilles Duceppe at the table with the Liberal and NDP leaders proved to be a fatal error.

Harper swayed public opinion waving the separatist card and resumed governing in the New Year. At the end of 2009 he appeared to be in a stronger position than ever, willfully ignoring votes by Parliament on many issues, including a request that the government produce documents pertaining to the raging issue of whether Canadian troops turned Afghan refugees over to Afghan forces for torture.

Harper again pulled the plug on Parliament by requesting that the GG prorogue Parliament again, which she meekly did. This time, however, Harper's prorogation gambit has led to a backlash. Editorialists and columnists across the country have widely condemned the government's action, seeing it for what it is, a cynical abuse of power by the most dictatorial PM of modern times.

You are invited to join the Facebook group : Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament and participate in upcoming rallies. Cardinal 47 will be there after a one-year hiatus due to the death of my wife.

Proroguing Parliament: To be or not to be

The chattering classes are atwitter with the idea that all Harper has to do is ask the GG to prorogue Parliament until January and his bacon will be saved. As an example, Ian MacDonald writes in the National Post:
"All Harper has to do is prorogue the House. In the Westminster tradition, managing the government’s agenda and timetable is the exclusive preserve of the prime minister. No governor-general has ever refused to sign an order-in-council to prorogue the House and bring it back with a new Throne Speech.
And there is a recent precedent for such a short session after an election. In 1988, after the free trade election, Brian Mulroney brought the House back in December with a Throne Speech accompanied by implementing legislation. The Throne Speech and bill were passed in 10 days and the session prorogued.
Harper has already caved on the party financing and public union issues. He has nothing to lose by resetting the clock."

Mr. MacDonald ,a former speechwriter for the Conservatives, has one fundamental factor wrong.In the example he cited, the PM met the House and got a vote of confidence so this is a spurious example of proroguing after a short session.

The essence of the matter is this: The GG appointed Mr. Harper because his party had the largest number of seats in the House. But Mr. Harper clearly does not enjoy the confidence of the House and the GG will be aware of that due to communications to her from the other party leaders. Unless he can win a confidence vote in the House Mr. Harper's credentials as PM are defunct.

To prorogue under these circumstances would be unique in Canadian history.

What MacDonald and others are forgetting is that we do not have a Presidential system. We elect a Parliament, not a Prime Minister. So, unless he can win a confidence vote, Mr. Harper has no prerogative to govern as PM or ask the GG to terminate this session before he has survived a confidence test.

Will the GG have the guts to call Harper on his bluff? Stay tuned.

Tory majority possible

I might have to eat my last post. Other recent polls (The Strategic Counsel, Environics today) indicate a surge in support for the Conservatives recently. So Harper instead of striving to preserve his minority status may have read the entrails of recent regular Conservative polling and sensed a possible opportunity to secure a majority, an opportunity that may have diminished after the House resumed and Conservative dirty linen was again aired daily.

The most recent poll conducted for CBC by Environics Ltd indicates Canadians are most likely to vote for the Conservatives in a federal election, and believe Stephen Harper and Jack Layton would make better prime ministers than Stéphane Dion( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/04/poll-results.html ) The poll suggests that 38 per cent of Canadians would vote for the Conservative party if an election were held immediately, 28 per cent for the Liberal party, 19 for the NDP, eight for the Bloc Québécois and seven for the Green party. If correct this would mean that the Conservatives start the election campaign with a 10 point lead and in reach of a majority.

One of the most disturbing results for the Liberals is that 39 per cent said Harper would make the best prime minister, 15 per cent Layton of the NDP while only 13 per cent chose Stephane Dion. Dion appears to be an anchor around the Liberals' neck.

While a poll does not an election make, these results indicate that the Liberals may have little chance of forming a minority. They will have to make up ground to hold Harper to another minority and deny him the majority which would leave them in the wilderness for another four years. Can they rise to the challenge? Time will tell.

One thing is clear. Mr. Harper will have broken another promise, to move to fixed election times. As Rex Murphy put it, he is moved by opportunism, not principles.

Is Dion on the ropes?

According to a new Toronto Star/Angus Reid Poll, Stephane Dion's voter approval rating stands at only 11 per cent, and the Tory party has a 10-point lead. The party standings were:

Conservatives 36%
Liberals 26%
NDP 18%
Green 9%
Bloc Quebecois 9%

Apparently 57 % disapprove of Dion's performance. And Canadians continue to express doubts about Harper as prime minister. Harper's approval rating is only 33 %

Dion seems headed for the abyss. Don't be surprised if Harper concocts some excuse to provoke an election to capitalize Dion's sagging fortunes.

Note: Other recent polls have shown the two parties virtually tied.

How dumb does Flaherty think we are?

Jim Flaherty has been beating the drums in recent weeks predicting doom and gloom for the Ontario economy and urging the provincial government to cut business taxes. You could almost think he is still Finance Minister in Ontario under Mike Harris. For a chap who promised peace and harmony with the provinces, his recent behaviour is sharply at odds with that pledge.

Is he running to succeed John Tory? Or has Stephen Harper decided to pick a fight with Ontario because "all" Canadians reputedly love to hate Toronto and presumably by extension Ontario? One thing is certain the Flaherty attacks are not doing much to win favour for the federal Conservatives in Ontario in the next election. And, if Harper is attempting to pin the blame for the impending downturn in the Ontario economy on McGuinty and his Liberals and deflect attention from Harper's failure to provide any tangible aid to Ontario, that gambit will fail.

It's hard to see what Harper perceives he will gain from the recent assault on the provincial government. It appears he has written off any prospects of making gains in Ontarion in the next election.